Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

State ex rel. Kimberly Barks, Relator 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
state-ex-rel-kimberly-barks-relator
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 State ex rel. Kimberly Barks, Relator

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Kimberly Barks sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the disclosure of her medical records in a personal injury lawsuit where she was accused of negligent golf cart operation while intoxicated. The circuit court ordered the release of her medical records, finding she waived the physician-patient privilege by asserting affirmative defenses of comparative fault and assumption of risk. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that Barks did not waive the privilege because her affirmative defenses were purely defensive and did not voluntarily place her medical condition at issue.