Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Watson Property, LLC 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
watson-property-llc
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Watson Property, LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 11, 2022

Hilliker Corporation, Appellant, vs. Watson Property, LLC, Respondent.

Respondent

Hilliker Corporation, a real estate broker, sued Watson Property, LLC, claiming it was a third-party beneficiary to a commercial real estate contract between Watson and Star United, LLC, and was entitled to a commission. The trial court granted summary judgment for Watson, concluding a subsequent termination agreement eliminated Watson's obligations. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that while Hilliker was a third-party beneficiary, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the termination agreement could eliminate Hilliker's rights under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 311.