St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Lake Breeze Farms, LLC 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
lake-breeze-farms-llc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Corporate 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Corporate LawCivil Litigation

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.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Lake Breeze Farms, LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 27, 2022

Endless Distribution, LLC vs. Lake Breeze Farms, LLC

Respondent

Endless Distribution, LLC obtained a default judgment against Lake Breeze Farms, LLC for breach of contract. Lake Breeze subsequently moved to vacate the default judgment, which the trial court granted without explanation. Endless Distribution appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the judgment. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that Lake Breeze failed to meet its burden to demonstrate good cause and a meritorious defense as required by Rule 74.05(d).

Corporate LawCivil Litigation