Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Samuel S. Knopik 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
samuel-s-knopik
Cases Shown
2
Top Practice Route
Insurance Bad Faith
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Samuel S. Knopik

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Samuel S. Knopik, the sole beneficiary of a trust, sued the trustee, Shelby Investments, LLC, for breach of trust and removal after distributions ceased. The trustee counterclaimed, asserting Knopik's suit violated the trust's no-contest clause, thereby forfeiting his beneficial interest. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the trustee on its counterclaim. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Knopik's failure to utilize the statutory "safe harbor" under section 456.4-420 to challenge the no-contest clause meant his petition violated the clause as written.