St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Unique Creations Salon, LLC, and Adam Meisinger and Tamara Meisinger 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
unique-creations-salon-llc-and-adam-meisinger-and-tamara-meisinger
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Personal InjuryCorporate LawReal Estate

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.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Unique Creations Salon, LLC, and Adam Meisinger and Tamara Meisinger

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Joemo Holdings, LLC (Landlord) sued Unique Creations Salon, LLC (Tenant) for rent and possession, to which Tenant counterclaimed for negligence and breach of contract. The trial court found in favor of the Landlord, and Tenant appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the Tenant should have sought a trial de novo under section 512.180.1, as the case was tried without a jury before an associate circuit judge under Chapter 535. The matter was remanded for a determination of appellate attorney's fees.

Personal InjuryCorporate LawReal Estate