Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

John M. Hark 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
john-m-hark
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 John M. Hark

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 22, 2019

John M. Hark, Respondent, vs. Amy M. (McKinney) Hark, Appellant.

Respondent

Mother filed a motion to modify child support and child custody. The trial court modified child support using an outdated Form 14 and denied the physical custody modification, finding no substantial change in circumstances. The appellate court reversed and remanded the child support modification, instructing the trial court to use the current Form 14 and follow the two-step Woolridge procedure. However, the court affirmed the denial of the physical custody modification, concluding that Mother failed to demonstrate the trial court's finding of no substantial change was against the weight of the evidence.