Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JOHNNIE SMITH and SHARON SMITH 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
johnnie-smith-and-sharon-smith
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JOHNNIE SMITH and SHARON SMITH

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Farm Bureau New Horizons Insurance Company of Missouri appealed the trial court's order granting Johnnie and Sharon Smith's motion for a new trial. The Smiths' house and car were destroyed by fire, and Farm Bureau denied coverage, alleging arson. After a jury verdict for Farm Bureau, the trial court granted a new trial without specifying the grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court's order was presumptively erroneous under Rule 84.05(c) for failing to specify grounds, and the Smiths failed to demonstrate an adequate, nondiscretionary ground to overcome this presumption.