Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
Missouri Case Party
Racket Merchandise Company 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
- racket-merchandise-company
- Cases Shown
- 2
- 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.
Cases Involving Racket Merchandise Company
Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.
Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
Racket Merchandise Company vs. 718 Grand, LLC, U.S. Property, Inc. and Power & Light Properties, LLC
Racket Merchandise Company sued 718 Grand, LLC, U.S. Property, Inc., and Power & Light Properties, LLC, alleging nuisance, ejectment, and negligence after demolition work on the defendants' adjacent properties caused damage and repeated flooding to Racket's building. A jury found in favor of Racket, awarding compensatory and punitive damages, and the trial court later granted injunctive relief. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that Racket presented a submissible case for ejectment and that the defendants failed to preserve their arguments regarding duplicative damages instructions and the lack of a knowledge element in punitive damages instructions.