Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Wilford Freestone 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
wilford-freestone
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Wilford Freestone

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Oct 24, 2023

Wilford Freestone vs. Board of Police Commissioners Kansas City, Missouri, Et Al

Appellant

Wilford Freestone appealed the trial court's judgment affirming the Board of Police Commissioners' decision to deny him duty-related disability retirement, instead granting non-duty disability retirement. Freestone, a former police officer diagnosed with PTSD and depression, argued the trial court misapplied the law in interpreting Section 86.1180.1. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute requires only an occupational disease to arise exclusively from employment, not that the inability to perform duties be exclusively caused by the disease, and found the trial court misapplied the law.