Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

SEAN MABINS and DARLINE MABINS, Plaintiffs- 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
sean-mabins-and-darline-mabins-plaintiffs
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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 SEAN MABINS and DARLINE MABINS, Plaintiffs-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Sean and Darline Mabins appealed the dismissal of their petitions against the Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA) and the School District of Springfield R-12 (SPS). The parents alleged discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) in places of public accommodation, stemming from their son's athletic ineligibility after transferring high schools. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the parents' petitions failed to state a claim because they did not allege denial of use or enjoyment of a public accommodation due to their protected class status, nor did they properly plead an association claim.