Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Megan Jernigan a/k/a Megan Krause 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
megan-jernigan-a/k/a-megan-krause
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Megan Jernigan a/k/a Megan Krause

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Megan Jernigan appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Mercy Hospital East Communities and other respondents in a medical malpractice action. Jernigan argued that she timely disclosed her expert and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Jernigan failed to timely disclose her expert, which was necessary to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice, and also failed to timely respond to the summary judgment motion, resulting in the admission of the respondents' uncontroverted facts.