Missouri Case Party

Planned Parenthood Great Plains 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: planned-parenthood-great-plains
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Civil Litigation

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.

Free Consultation Call Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Planned Parenthood Great Plains

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Planned Parenthood Great Plains vs. State of Missouri ex rel. Attorney General Andrew Bailey

Appellant

Planned Parenthood Great Plains appealed the circuit court's judgment granting the Attorney General's motion for judgment on the pleadings and enforcing a Civil Investigative Demand (CID). The CID sought information related to an investigation into alleged deception and unfair practices under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act concerning transgender care services. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the CID was lawfully issued, medical services are considered "merchandise" under the Act, and the Attorney General's authority was not preempted.

Civil Litigation