Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Julie Ann Thomas 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
julie-ann-thomas
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Estate Planning
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Julie Ann Thomas

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Julie Ann Thomas appealed an interlocutory order from a trust dispute, seeking a safe harbor determination regarding no-contest clauses in several trusts. The trial court's 2018 order found some of Thomas's petition paragraphs violated no-contest clauses, while others did not. Thomas then filed a motion for a new safe harbor determination on a third amended petition or reconsideration of the 2018 order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the 2019 order Thomas challenged only denied reconsideration of the 2018 order and did not constitute an appealable order determining a petition under section 456.4-420.1.