Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Larry D. Blankenship 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
larry-d-blankenship
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Larry D. Blankenship

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 2, 2021

Larry D. Blankenship, Appellant, v. Franklin County Collector, et al, Respondent.

Appellant

Larry Blankenship, on behalf of a class of property owners, challenged the Strain-Japan R-XVI School District's operating funds tax levies for 2013-2018, alleging they violated the Hancock Amendment and Section 137.073 RSMo by exceeding voter-approved rates. The trial court found no violations and entered judgment for the District. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the District's tax levies violated both the Hancock Amendment and Section 137.073. The court found Taxpayers were entitled to refunds for 2017 and 2018, and costs and attorney's fees, but denied refunds for earlier years and class-wide refunds under Section 139.031.