Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jimmy Yount 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
jimmy-yount
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jimmy Yount

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 14, 2021

Jimmy Yount, Appellant, vs. Keller Motors, Inc., Respondent.

Appellant

Jimmy Yount sued his former employer, Keller Motors, Inc., alleging wrongful discharge under the Whistleblower's Protection Act (WPA) after reporting co-employee theft. The circuit court dismissed his petition, finding that reporting co-employee misconduct did not qualify him as a "protected person" under the WPA. The Eastern District reversed, holding that the WPA's definition of "employer" must be interpreted to include unlawful acts or serious misconduct of co-employees to harmonize with the legislature's intent to codify existing common-law whistleblower protections.