Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

VIVIAN BADILLO 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
vivian-badillo
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Car Accidents
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 VIVIAN BADILLO

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Apr 11, 2023

VIVIAN BADILLO, Appellant vs. THE HOME CITY ICE COMPANY, and MYLES MATHIS, Respondents

Appellant

Vivian Badillo was injured in an auto accident caused by Myles Mathis, an employee of The Home City Ice Company. Badillo sued Mathis for negligence and Home City Ice for negligence based on respondeat superior, seeking punitive damages against both. The trial court excluded evidence related to Home City Ice's hiring, training, and policies, finding it irrelevant to a punitive damages claim based solely on vicarious liability. The jury awarded compensatory damages but denied punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence because it was not relevant to a punitive damages claim based only on vicarious liability.