Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Larry T. Acton 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-t-acton
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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 T. Acton

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Oct 20, 2020

Larry T. Acton vs. Kaye Lynn Rahn

Appellant

Larry T. Acton appealed the denial of his motion to modify child custody provisions. The appellate court noted significant deficiencies in Acton's pro se brief, including an argumentative statement of facts, non-compliant points relied on, and a lack of legal argument, standards of review, and record references. Despite being given an opportunity to amend, Acton failed to cure these violations. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Rule 84.04, stating it could not reach the merits.