Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Walls Real Estate Company 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
walls-real-estate-company
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Corporate 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Walls Real Estate Company

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Sep 30, 2025

Jeanette A. Vogt, Respondent, vs. Walls Real Estate Company, Appellant.

Appellant

Jeanette A. Vogt sued Walls Real Estate Company for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and Walls Real Estate filed a counterclaim. The trial court entered judgment for Vogt after Walls Real Estate failed to appear at trial and subsequently denied its motions to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment because counsel's absence was a deliberate choice. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported Vogt's claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and the award of attorney fees.