Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Mathew Flaharty 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
mathew-flaharty
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Mathew Flaharty

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

In Re the Marriage of: Elke Gonzales-Flaharty vs. Mathew Flaharty

Respondent

Elke Gonzales-Flaharty (Mother) appealed from a judgment dissolving her marriage to Matthew Flaharty (Father), challenging the child custody arrangement, the trial court's in camera review of an exhibit, and the denial of retroactive child support. The appellate court dismissed the appeal due to Mother's serious briefing deficiencies. Specifically, Mother failed to provide a fair statement of facts, did not identify the proper Murphy v. Carron ground for her points on appeal, and failed to supply an adequate record for review.