Your case is unique, but you are not alone.
About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.
Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?
How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?
AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.
Full Analytics Report
- Complete case narrative
- Judge details and rulings
- Case disposition and outcome
- All docket entries
- Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Case Information
Filed
2025-10-24
Type
Ap Civil Appeal Circuit
Docket
24 entries
Disposition
disposed
Parties
Plaintiff
Dap Products, Inc.
Defendant
Kamprad, Charles|84 Lumber Company|Ace Hardware Corporation|Air & Liquid Systems Corporation|Alberici Constructors, Inc.|Ameren Corporation|Ameren International Corporation|Anheuser Busch, Llc|Aschinger Electric Company|Ashley Energy, Llc|Bayer Corporation|Brand Insulations, Inc.|Cameron International Corporation|Chicago Bridge & Iron Company|Nicholson, Bryan Dennis|Iken, Gregory Alan|Redco Corporation F/k/a Crane Co.|Colgatepalmolive Company |Sorenson Brotten, Elizabeth Marie|Conopco, Inc.|Conwed Corporation|Cvs Pharmacy, Inc.|Daniel International Corporation|Fluor Corporation|Fluor Enterprises, Inc.|Dap, Inc., K/n/a La Mirada Products Co., Inc.|Davion, Inc.|Fallah, Melissa Mariam|The Dow Chemical Company|Draco Mechanical Supply, Inc.|Everlasting Valve Co.|Fcc Llc, F/k/a Frucon Construction Corporation|Flowserve Us, Inc.|Hatch, Mary Ann|Redmond, Jacqueline|Fmc Corporation|Ford Motor Company|Foster Wheeler, Llc|Garcoa, Inc.|Gardner Denver, Inc.|General Electric Company|General Gasket
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- uppl Ntc Appl-Legal File Only
- ourt Order Issued Appellant DAP Products, Inc. appeals from an order, not denominated judgment, denying their Rule 74.05(d) motion to vacate interlocutory order of default. Appellant's notice of appeal argues this order is an appealable final order in that proceedings under Rule 74.05(d) are an independent action which necessarily conclude in an independent judgment. See Harris v. Dep 't of Corr. , 717 S.W.3d 251,257 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (citing Steele v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 688 S.W.3d 192,200 (Mo. banc 2024)). It is the duty of appellate courts to address threshold jurisdictional questions before proceeding to the merits. Wilson v. City of St. Louis, 600 S.W.3d 763, 765 (Mo. banc 2020). "The right to appeal is purely statutory and, where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right exists." Id. at 767. Generally, an appeal may only be taken from a final judgment, disposing of all claims and all parties involved in a case and leaving nothing for future adjudication. Flower Valley, LLC v. Zimmerman, 575 S.W.3d 497, 501 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (citing Rule 74.01); see also 512.020, RSMo. An order granting or denying a motion to set aside a default judgment under Rule 74.05(d), as an independent action, but must still meet the requirements of Rule 74.01(a) before appeal - including the requirement that the such an order be entered as signed writing denominated a judgment or decree. Robertson v. Rosner, 641 S.W.3d 436,440 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (citing Kelly-Patel v. Wensel, 588 S.W.3d 604,608 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019)). Requiring an order to be denominated a judgment for appeal is not a mere formality but is instead intended to establish a bright line test to assist the litigants and the appellate courts by clearly distinguishing when orders and rulings of the circuit court are intended to be final and appealable and when the circuit court sought to retain jurisdiction over an issue. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997). Appellant is directed to file a supplemental legal file containing a document that complies with Rule 74.01(a) or otherwise show cause on or before January 9, 2026, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment.
- orrespondence Received Returned mail for Merck & Company, Inc.
- orrespondence Received Returned mail for ITT, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc.
- orrespondence Received Returned mail for Merck & Co.
- orrespondence Received Returned mail for ITT, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc.
- orrespondence Received Returned mail for Paramount Global and Superior Boiler Works.
- orrespondence Received Returned mail for Superior Boiler Works, Inc.
- ecord on Appeal Complete
- lectronic LF Filed Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. Filed By: MICHAEL DAVID SCHAG On Behalf Of: DAP PRODUCTS, INC.
- lerk Remark copy of motion ruling list dated 11-17-25 mailed to pro se parties
- ranted C. Drinkwine Associated Entries: 11/14/2025 - Motion for Pro Hac Vice +
- otion for Pro Hac Vice for Christopher J. Drinkwine; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service. Filed By: MICHAEL DAVID SCHAG On Behalf Of: DAP PRODUCTS, INC. Associated Entries: 11/17/2025 - Granted +
- lerk Remark Acknowledgement letter mailed to Thomas Kloeppinger, and all Pro Se Parties.
- lerk Remark Letter to Counsel re Remote Public Access.
- cknowledgement Letter Sent
- OA Filed in Appellate Court
- iling Fee Paid
- OA Filed in Circuit Court
Get Free Case Details
Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.
By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.
Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.
Full Analytics Report
- Complete case narrative
- Judge details and rulings
- Case disposition and outcome
- All docket entries
- Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In
