Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Virginia L. Graham 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
virginia-l-graham
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Virginia L. Graham

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

Virginia L. Graham vs. Missouri Dept. of Social Services

Appellant

Virginia L. Graham appealed the dismissal of her petition for de novo judicial review of a Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board decision. The Board upheld a finding of neglect against Graham, and she sought judicial review, but the trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that "notification" for the 60-day filing period occurred when the Board's decision email was sent to Graham's email address of record, not when she subjectively opened it. The court also denied Graham's first point on appeal as multifarious.