Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

The Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, et al., and Matt Sterling and Lauren Thompson 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
the-board-of-zoning-adjustment-of-the-city-of-kansas-city-missouri-et-al-and-matt-sterling-and-lauren-thompson
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Insurance Bad Faith
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 The Board of Zoning Adjustment of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, et al., and Matt Sterling and Lauren Thompson

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Kathleen M. Vandenboom, as Trustee, appealed the Kansas City Board of Zoning Adjustment's (BZA) decision to deny her application to build a single-family home on Lot 63. The BZA had reversed a prior city staff approval, finding that Lot 63 had been consolidated with adjacent lots under the city's zoning code, making its subsequent sale and proposed development a violation. The circuit court affirmed the BZA's decision. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the BZA's interpretation of the zoning ordinances, specifically that the lot consolidation provision applied and the exception for existing lots did not negate the consolidation.