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
timothy-g-vogel
Cases Shown
2
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.
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.
Robert Steffen appealed pro se from a circuit court judgment that found against him on claims of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. The appellate court dismissed Steffen's appeal. The dismissal was based on Steffen's failure to comply with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements, specifically regarding the statement of facts, factual assertions with record references, and stating the applicable standard of review. Additionally, Steffen failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings below, which prevented any meaningful review of his claims.
Gregory Schoenberg appealed the denial of his Rule 74.05(d) motion to set aside a default judgment, which had been entered against him for a violation of the Missouri Securities Act. He argued the trial court abused its discretion by finding he failed to show good cause for not responding to the petition and that the default judgment lacked sufficient evidence for liability. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that Schoenberg's reliance on a third party was a reckless choice, not mere negligence, and that Rule 74.05(a) does not permit a challenge to liability in a default judgment. The court also denied Vogel's motion for attorney's fees on appeal.