Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Trevor Hill, Leslie Hill, Lanie Hill and Shelbie Alexander 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
trevor-hill-leslie-hill-lanie-hill-and-shelbie-alexander
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Family Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Trevor Hill, Leslie Hill, Lanie Hill and Shelbie Alexander

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment holding that a minor child was not a resident of her natural father's household for purposes of an insurance policy exclusion, after the child was injured on the father's property. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the respondents and denied Shelter's cross-motion. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings, holding that summary judgment was improper because the ultimate factual determination of the child's residency remained in dispute, even with stipulated facts.