Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Roger C. Smith and Lavonne Morrisey 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
roger-c-smith-and-lavonne-morrisey
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Roger C. Smith and Lavonne Morrisey

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Howard and Darrell Smith, individually and as co-trustees of the Virginia Marie Smith Revocable Trust, filed a declaratory judgment action to set aside an amendment to the Trust, alleging Virginia lacked capacity and was unduly influenced by Roger Smith and Lavonne Morrisey. A jury found in favor of Howard and Darrell, concluding the Trust Amendment was invalid due to lack of mental capacity and undue influence. Roger and Lavonne appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for undue influence and the trial court's decision to grant a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the undue influence claim and that a jury trial was appropriate for factual issues in a declaratory judgment action.