Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Physicians Choice Wellness Development, LLC 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
physicians-choice-wellness-development-llc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Corporate 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Physicians Choice Wellness Development, LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 24, 2024

Physicians Choice Wellness Development, LLC, Appellant, vs. Mark R. Devore, Respondent.

Appellant

Physicians Choice Wellness Development, LLC appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its petition for damages against Mark Devore, the St. Louis County Collector of Revenue, for allegedly miscalculating tax sale redemption costs. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the tort claims were barred by official immunity and the public duty doctrine because the calculation of redemption costs was a discretionary act. The court also found the promissory estoppel claim failed as it sought monetary damages, and the dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion given multiple opportunities to amend.