Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Rachel Kuhl 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
rachel-kuhl
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Rachel Kuhl

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 4, 2018

Kyle Conoyer, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Rachel Kuhl, Respondent/Respondent.

Respondent

Kyle Conoyer sought third-party custody of E.K., the child of Rachel Kuhl, with whom he had a long-term familial relationship. The motion court granted Kuhl's motion to dismiss Conoyer's amended petition. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Conoyer's petition adequately stated a claim for third-party custody under Section 452.375.5. The court further found that the motion court erred by potentially considering matters outside the pleadings without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and following the mandatory procedures of Rule 74.04.