Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Prime Properties Investments Inc., et al 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
prime-properties-investments-inc-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Prime Properties Investments Inc., et al

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 10, 2019

Tracie L. Ostermeier, et al vs. Prime Properties Investments Inc., et al

Respondent

Tracie Ostermeier and Samantha Rice (Appellants) sued Prime Properties Investments, Inc., and Robb Steinbeck (Respondents) for damages arising from a bedbug infestation in their apartments. A jury found in favor of Appellants on negligence and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) claims, but denied punitive damages. Appellants appealed the denial of their motion for attorney fees under the MMPA and the exclusion of evidence relevant to punitive damages. The appellate court reversed the denial of attorney fees, finding the trial court abused its discretion by basing its decision on Appellants' pro bono representation, and remanded for reconsideration. The court affirmed the exclusion of evidence related to bedbug infestations in other buildings, finding no abuse of discretion.