Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Lydia McEvoy in her Official Capacity as Collector of Revenue of Clay County 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
lydia-mcevoy-in-her-official-capacity-as-collector-of-revenue-of-clay-county
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Lydia McEvoy in her Official Capacity as Collector of Revenue of Clay County

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

The Missouri Clean Energy District (MCED) sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Clay County Collector to include special property assessments for energy efficiency improvements on tax bills. The Collector refused, citing procedural irregularities, insufficient evidence of contract delivery, inconsistencies with state statutes, and the lack of an intergovernmental agreement. The circuit court granted the writ. The Western District affirmed, holding that any procedural error was not prejudicial, the contracts were sufficiently delivered, the Collector had a ministerial duty to collect the assessments, and an intergovernmental agreement was not required.