Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

O'Reilly Automotive 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
oreilly-automotive
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 O'Reilly Automotive

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 17, 2020

Rebecca Courtright, et al vs. O'Reilly Automotive

Respondent

Prospective employees sued O'Reilly Automotive, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for revoking conditional job offers based on consumer reports without prior disclosure. The circuit court granted O'Reilly's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, which was converted to a summary judgment motion on appeal. The appellate court reversed in part, finding that one plaintiff, Mr. Bradley, had standing for his adverse-action claim because he suffered a concrete injury from inaccurate information coupled with the employer's procedural violation. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment against the other plaintiffs, Ms. Courtright and Mr. Saye, on their adverse-action claims, and against Mr. Saye and Mr. Estrada on their disclosure and authorization claims, concluding they failed to establish a concrete injury or dispute material facts.