Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Julie Gomoletz 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-gomoletz
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Julie Gomoletz

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 8, 2022

Julie Gomoletz vs. Rockhurst University

Appellant

Julie Gomoletz appealed the circuit court's dismissal with prejudice of her petition alleging discrimination by Rockhurst University under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The circuit court found Gomoletz lacked a valid right-to-sue letter and that Rockhurst was religiously exempt. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court improperly considered matters outside the pleadings without converting the motion to one for summary judgment, and erred by relying on MCHR's non-final administrative findings that were subject to ongoing judicial review.