Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Keat Properties, LLC, 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
keat-properties-llc-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Keat Properties, LLC, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 25, 2025

Joseph Simmons III, et al., Appellants, vs. Keat Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Respondent

Plaintiffs, who were injured when a motorist drove into a Starbucks storefront, sued Keat Properties, LLC, McKnight Investors, LLC, and Starbucks Corporation for negligence and premises liability. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, holding that the defendants owed no duty to protect invitees from unforeseeable third-party negligence, as a single prior incident ten years earlier was not sufficiently numerous or recent to establish foreseeability. The court also found that the parking lot's configuration did not, by itself, constitute a dangerous condition.