Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

STL Riverview Plaza LLC 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
stl-riverview-plaza-llc
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 STL Riverview Plaza LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

STL Riverview Plaza LLC sued the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, alleging MSD breached temporary construction easements by occupying property beyond verbally represented time limits. The circuit court granted summary judgment for MSD, finding the alleged oral agreements void under Section 432.070 and barred by the parol evidence rule. The Eastern District affirmed, holding that contracts with municipal corporations must be in writing and that the written easements were completely integrated and unambiguous, precluding extrinsic evidence of oral representations.