Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jimmie Sue Marchbank and John Marchbank Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
jimmie-sue-marchbank-and-john-marchbank
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Medical Malpractice
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Jimmie Sue Marchbank and John Marchbank

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Jimmie Sue and John Marchbank sued Dr. Amit Chakrabarty for medical negligence after Jimmie Sue suffered a permanent colostomy following a vaginal prolapse repair surgery. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Chakrabarty, and the circuit court entered judgment. On appeal, the Marchbanks argued the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of Dr. Chakrabarty's prior disciplinary record, which they sought to use for impeachment when he testified as a non-retained expert. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the exclusion of this impeachment evidence was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error.