Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

K.C. Auto Panel, Inc. and Jerry Vaughn, et al 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
kc-auto-panel-inc-and-jerry-vaughn-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 K.C. Auto Panel, Inc. and Jerry Vaughn, et al

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Landowners Cityview Real Estate Services, LLC and Waldo Capital Management, LLC appealed a judgment in their unlawful detainer action against K.C. Auto Panel, Inc. and Jerry Vaughn. The Landowners challenged the trial court's conclusions that certain claims related to the Defendants' occupation of the premises were waived and that the Landowners would bear the expense of disposing of remaining personal property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding it was final for appeal and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding waiver and the allocation of property disposal expenses.