Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Wentzville Church of God 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
wentzville-church-of-god
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Real Estate
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Wentzville Church of God

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 19, 2024

Magellanic Seven, LLC, Respondent, vs. Wentzville Church of God, Appellant.

Appellant

Magellanic Seven, LLC, obtained a judgment quieting title to real property against Wentzville Church of God. After the original judgment was affirmed on appeal, Magellanic filed a nunc pro tunc motion to correct a typographical error in the property's legal description, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed the nunc pro tunc order, holding that such an order is an appealable "special order after final judgment" and that the trial court properly corrected a clerical error supported by the record.