Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jody Hendrick, Et Al. 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
jody-hendrick-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jody Hendrick, Et Al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Jody Hendrick, Et Al. vs. Academy I, LP, D/B/A Academy Sports + Outdoors, Et Al.

Appellant

Jody and Jessica Hendrick appealed the dismissal of their negligence and loss of consortium action against Academy Sports + Outdoors and an employee. The Hendricks alleged negligence after a firearm and ammunition were stolen from the store and used to shoot Jody Hendrick. The trial court dismissed the case based on the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The appellate court affirmed, holding that the PLCAA bars general negligence claims resulting from the criminal misuse of firearms, regardless of whether a sale occurred, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the petition to allege negligent entrustment, as the facts did not support that exception.