Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Matthew P. O'Grady, et al. 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
matthew-p-ogrady-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Matthew P. O'Grady, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Apr 11, 2023

Daniel McCullen, Appellant, vs. Matthew P. O'Grady, et al., Respondents.

Respondent

Daniel McCullen appealed the dismissal of his legal malpractice claims against his former attorneys, Matthew P. O'Grady, O'Grady Law Firm, LLC, OnderLaw, LLC, and James D. O'Leary. The trial court had dismissed the claims, finding them barred by the five-year statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that for a layperson involved in complex litigation, the claims accrued when an adverse summary judgment ruling effectively closed all avenues of recovery, which fell within the statutory period. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.