Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Judy A. Tinnin 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
judy-a-tinnin
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Judy A. Tinnin

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / May 31, 2022

Judy A. Tinnin vs. MODOT & Patrol Employees' Retirement System

Appellant

Judy A. Tinnin sought judicial review of a decision by the MODOT & Patrol Employees' Retirement System (MPERS) board of trustees, which corrected a calculation error that reduced her future monthly retirement benefits. The trial court reversed MPERS's decision, applying equitable estoppel and interpreting the relevant statutes to include a reasonableness limitation on MPERS's duty to correct errors. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that MPERS had a mandatory statutory duty to correct calculation errors discovered within ten years, and this duty was not subject to a reasonableness limitation or equitable estoppel.