St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

ROSE MARIE LEMMO, Petitioner- 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-marie-lemmo-petitioner
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Family LawCivil Litigation

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.

Free Family ConsultationCall About A Family Claim

Cases Involving ROSE MARIE LEMMO, Petitioner-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Dec 5, 2023

ROSE MARIE LEMMO, Petitioner-Respondent v. TIMOTHY LLOYD NOBLES, Respondent-Appellant

Respondent

In a child-custody-modification case, ex-Husband appealed the circuit court's "Order Amending Modification Judgment," which added a payment deadline and awarded additional attorney fees to ex-Wife. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that the challenged order was not a final, appealable judgment or decree because it was not denominated as such under Rule 74.01(a).

Family LawCivil Litigation