Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and APEX PAVING COMPANY 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
missouri-highways-and-transportation-commission-and-apex-paving-company
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 MISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and APEX PAVING COMPANY

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Appellants Brantley Atchley and Becky Jo Tittle, survivors of Kayla Atchley, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Apex Paving Company. Their negligence claim alleged that a shoulder drop-off on Highway 153 caused their daughter's fatal car accident, and Apex owed a common law duty to keep the roadway safe. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Apex had no common law duty as it had not yet mobilized to the site or performed any work in the area of the alleged defect. The court also denied the argument that summary judgment improperly limited the Appellants' theory of the case.