Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Wanda L. King 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
wanda-l-king
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Wanda L. King

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Dec 18, 2018

Wanda L. King vs. George B. Sorensen

Appellant

Wanda King, individually and as plaintiff ad litem, sued George B. Sorensen, M.D., and Saint Luke's Physician Specialists for wrongful death and lost chance of recovery. After a jury verdict for the defendants, the trial court granted King's motion for a new trial on remand from a prior appeal. Sorensen and Saint Luke's appealed the order granting a new trial. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice of appeal was untimely because an order granting a new trial is an interlocutory order that becomes final for appeal purposes when entered, and Rule 81.05(a) does not apply to delay its finality.