Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Loren Macke, Respondent, Pamela Eden 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
loren-macke-respondent-pamela-eden
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Wrongful Death
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Loren Macke, Respondent, Pamela Eden

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Pamela Eden appealed the circuit court's distribution of a wrongful death settlement for her son, Nicklaus Macke, arguing the court abused its discretion by denying a second continuance and erred in apportioning only 2% of the settlement to her. The circuit court had awarded 98% to Nicklaus's father, Loren Macke. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance and no error in the apportionment of damages, while also clarifying the appropriate standard of review for such cases.