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
laronda-phox
Cases Shown
3
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.
Laronda Phox appealed from a circuit court judgment that partially granted summary judgment to defendants and dismissed other claims related to a title loan and vehicle repossession. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment. The trial court's order did not resolve all claims against all parties, specifically leaving breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against one defendant unresolved, and did not include an express determination that there was no just reason for delay under Rule 74.01(b).
Laronda Phox appealed pro se from a partial summary judgment and a default judgment entered in her favor. The appellate court dismissed Phox's appeal due to serious deficiencies in her appellate brief, specifically non-compliance with Rule 84.04 regarding the statement of facts, points relied on, and argument section. Additionally, the court granted Respondents' motion for damages for frivolous appeal under Rule 84.19 and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate award of attorney's fees.