Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Samantha B. Bourne 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
samantha-b-bourne
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Samantha B. Bourne

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 11, 2024

Samantha B. Bourne, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

Appellant

Samantha B. Bourne appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of unemployment benefits, arguing that improper notice from the Division of Employment Security violated her due process rights by leading to the dismissal of her appeals as untimely. The Commission, however, had treated her appeals as timely and denied them on the merits, finding she was disqualified from benefits because she was not unemployed. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, denying Bourne's points on appeal because the Commission did not find her appeals untimely and her due process argument was unpreserved.