Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Richard A. Aguilar 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
richard-a-aguilar
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Richard A. Aguilar

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Sep 3, 2019

Richard A. Aguilar vs. Geico Casualty Co.

Appellant

GEICO Casualty Co. appealed a circuit court judgment confirming a $35-million arbitration award stemming from a catastrophic motorcycle accident. GEICO challenged the denial of its motions to intervene in the arbitration confirmation proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that GEICO's motions to intervene were untimely under section 537.065.2 and that GEICO lacked a direct interest for intervention as of right under Rule 52.12(a)(2). The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying permissive intervention.