Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

ST. JAMES WINERY, INC. and RAUL R. ESPINOZA 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
st-james-winery-inc-and-raul-r-espinoza
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Car Accidents
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Car AccidentsCivil LitigationPersonal Injury

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 Car Accident ConsultationCall About A Car Accident Claim

Cases Involving ST. JAMES WINERY, INC. and RAUL R. ESPINOZA

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Daniel and Tanya Woodgate sued St. James Winery and its employee, Raul Espinoza, for injuries Mr. Woodgate sustained in a motorcycle accident caused by Espinoza. After a jury awarded the Woodgates $12.8 million, the defendants appealed, alleging errors in the admission of expert testimony and the denial of a mistrial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in either ruling.

Car AccidentsCivil LitigationPersonal Injury