Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Stephens Cemetery, Est. 1864, Inc., et al. 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
stephens-cemetery-est-1864-inc-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Stephens Cemetery, Est. 1864, Inc., et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Wilma Elizabeth Tyler appealed a judgment quieting title to a cemetery in favor of Stephens Cemetery, Est. 1864, Inc., and individual respondents. The trial court found title to a 3.11-acre cemetery vested in the public and charged the Corporation with its maintenance. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the individual respondents lacked standing, the Corporation could not claim adverse possession, the trial court erred in allowing an amendment to pleadings, and there was no legal basis to vest title of the disputed land in the public or through adverse possession.