St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Tamar Godfrey 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
tamar-godfrey
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Workers' Compensation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Workers' CompensationCivil Litigation

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 ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Tamar Godfrey

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Apr 23, 2024

Tamar Godfrey, Appellant, vs. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Respondent.

Appellant

Tamar Godfrey appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision affirming the dismissal of her workers' compensation claim for failure to prosecute. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Godfrey's notice of appeal was untimely filed three days after the statutory deadline. The court further held that Godfrey's motion for reconsideration did not extend the deadline, as it was treated as an untimely amended application for review.

Workers' CompensationCivil Litigation