Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Rose Cottonaro 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
rose-cottonaro
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Rose Cottonaro

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Rose Cottonaro vs. Express Medical Transportation, INC.

Appellant

Express Medical Transportation, Inc. appealed a judgment finding it negligent and awarding Rose Cottonaro compensatory and punitive damages. Express argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence of three "other similar incidents" (OSIs) because they were not substantially similar to Cottonaro's incident. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Express failed to properly preserve its objection to the OSI evidence by not objecting at trial on the grounds of lack of similarity, despite filing pretrial motions in limine. The court also declined to review for plain error as Express did not properly request it.