Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Katherine Harned 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
katherine-harned
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Katherine Harned

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Aug 23, 2022

Katherine Harned vs. Daniel V. Spurlock, D.O., et al.

Appellant

Katherine Harned sued Daniel V. Spurlock, D.O., and Meritas Health Corporation for medical malpractice after a suicide attempt resulted in severe burns, alleging negligent discharge and treatment. A jury found in favor of Harned, and the trial court denied the defendants' motions for new trial and remittitur. On appeal, the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of the motion for new trial, and concluding that the claims of instructional error and limitation of cross-examination were unpreserved. The court also found that the trial court properly applied the catastrophic personal injury cap for noneconomic damages.