Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Newell Machinery Co., Inc. 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
newell-machinery-co-inc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Newell Machinery Co., Inc.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Feb 25, 2020

Newell Machinery Co., Inc. vs. Pro Circuit, Inc.

Appellant

Newell Machinery Co., Inc. sued its subcontractor, Pro Circuit, Inc., for unjust enrichment after paying a mechanics' lien under protest. The circuit court ruled for Newell on unjust enrichment but denied prejudgment interest and found for Pro Circuit on Newell's "Delay Claim." On appeal, the Western District affirmed the unjust enrichment judgment and the ruling on the Delay Claim, but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, amending the judgment to include it and correcting a statutory citation.