Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

TINA M. PENNINGTON 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
tina-m-pennington
Cases Shown
1
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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 TINA M. PENNINGTON

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jan 11, 2022

TINA M. PENNINGTON, Appellant vs. BRANDON WILSON and KRIS WILSON, Respondents

Appellant

Tina Pennington sued her neighbors, Brandon and Kris Wilson, after their contractor cleared trees and brush on Pennington's property. The trial court denied Pennington's petition, finding she presented evidence of damages but no credible evidence that the Wilsons were legally responsible. On appeal, Pennington argued the court misapplied the law of agency and that the damages determination was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding no credible evidence of an agency relationship, as agency is a question of fact and Pennington failed to meet her burden of proof.