Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

The City of Sunset Hills, Missouri, City of Sunset Hills Board of Adjustment, Patricia Fribis, Ryan Patton, and William Weber 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-city-of-sunset-hills-missouri-city-of-sunset-hills-board-of-adjustment-patricia-fribis-ryan-patton-and-william-weber
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 The City of Sunset Hills, Missouri, City of Sunset Hills Board of Adjustment, Patricia Fribis, Ryan Patton, and William Weber

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Donald Placke Jr. appealed the City of Sunset Hills Board of Adjustment's decision to grant his neighbor, Ryan Patton, a variance from a thirty-foot rear setback ordinance for a home addition. Placke, appearing pro se, opposed the variance due to concerns about property setbacks and rainwater diversion. The appellate court dismissed Placke's appeal because his brief failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04, citing an argumentative statement of facts and multifarious points relied on.