Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JOHN PATRICK HALEY, Respondent- 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-patrick-haley-respondent
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 PATRICK HALEY, Respondent-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Mar 18, 2024

DEANNA (HALEY) BROWN, Petitioner-Respondent v. JOHN PATRICK HALEY, Respondent-Appellant

Appellant

Father appealed a judgment of modification in a dissolution action, challenging an order to pay $141,283.52 for medical, extracurricular, and college expenses. He argued the underlying support judgments from 2008 and 2014 were unenforceable due to vague, open-ended terms and that the college expense award was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Father waived his arguments by failing to appeal the original judgments or file motions to amend, and that the prior judgments were erroneous, not void, thus precluding collateral attack. The court also found Father failed to meet the burden for an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge.