Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

LAVERNE COPELAND 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
laverne-copeland
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 LAVERNE COPELAND

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Oct 29, 2024

LUCAS HOLTERMAN, Appellant vs. LAVERNE COPELAND, Respondent

Respondent

Lucas Holterman, an employee of Holterman Logging, was severely injured by a falling dead tree while working on land owned by Laverne Copeland. Holterman sued Copeland on theories of premises liability and inherently dangerous activity. The trial court granted summary judgment for Copeland, finding that she did not retain control of the property and logging was not inherently dangerous. The appellate court affirmed, holding that logging is not an inherently dangerous activity as a matter of law and that Copeland owed no duty of care under premises liability due to the independent contractor rule.