Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

PMS 4583 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
pms-4583-llc
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 PMS 4583 LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 14, 2021

PMS 4583 LLC, Appellant, vs. City of New Melle, Respondent.

Appellant

PMS 4583 LLC appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its declaratory-judgment claim against the City of New Melle, which arose from the City's Board of Aldermen denying a rezoning application. The circuit court had dismissed the claim, finding that a declaratory judgment was unavailable for judicial review of administrative zoning actions and that a writ of certiorari under Section 89.110 was required. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board of Aldermen's decision was a legislative act, not an administrative one, and therefore Section 89.110 did not apply, making a declaratory judgment under Section 536.150 the proper avenue for review. The case was remanded for further proceedings.