Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

SKAGGS CHIROPRACTIC, L.L.C., Plaintiff- 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
skaggs-chiropractic-llc-plaintiff
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 SKAGGS CHIROPRACTIC, L.L.C., Plaintiff-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jun 5, 2018

SKAGGS CHIROPRACTIC, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROSE FORD, Defendant-Respondent.

Appellant

Skaggs Chiropractic, L.L.C. (Provider) appealed a judgment in a small-claims case that denied its claim for chiropractic services rendered to Rose Ford (Patient). The trial court declined to enter judgment for Provider, finding its UCC lien superseded by the medical lien statute and that its decision would be inconsistent with a prior interlocutory ruling in Patient's separate personal injury suit. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the prior ruling was not a final judgment and thus did not trigger collateral estoppel, but that the abatement doctrine applied due to the overlap between the two cases.