Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Z.L. 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
zl
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Z.L.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Apr 22, 2025

C.Y.L., Respondent, vs. Z.L., Appellant.

Appellant

Appellant Z.L. appealed the circuit court's judgment entering a one-year, full order of protection against him on behalf of Respondent C.Y.L., his daughter-in-law. C.Y.L. alleged harassment under the Missouri Adult Abuse Act, stemming from two incidents where Z.L. appeared at her residence, culminating in a verbal altercation where he yelled and used disparaging language. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and vacated the order of protection, finding that C.Y.L. failed to present sufficient evidence to satisfy both the subjective and objective components of harassment's statutory definition, specifically regarding substantial emotional distress.