Recognized since 2010
St. Charles, Missouri
Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
David Hamilton represents clients in commercial and general litigation matters, including public entity representation, and concentrates his practice on defense of commercial lending claims and the defense and prosecution of general business litigation in both federal and state courts. He also represents public entities in eminent domain matters and has argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern and Western Districts.
David received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1973 from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and in 1979, received his J.D. from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Missouri and has been admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and Eighth Circuits. He has also been admitted pro hac vice to practice in the States of Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, Texas and Wisconsin. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the Missouri Bar Association and Missouri Municipal Attorneys Association. David is originally from Macon, Missouri, and currently resides in St. Peters, Missouri.
Contact & Links
- Lawyer Page: http://www.hamiltonweber.com/professionals/david-t-hamilton/
- E-mail: email@example.com
- 200 North Third Street
St. Charles, MO 63301
- Missouri, The Missouri Bar
- Association of Attorney-Mediators - Member
- Missouri Municipal Attorney's Association - Member
Named "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers® for:
- Municipal Law, St. Louis (2014)
Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2022 for work in:
- Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
- Municipal Law
- St. Louis Lawyer of the Year, Municipal Law, 2014
- The Best Lawyers in America, Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law (2010-20), Municipal Law (2011-20)
Huber v. Wells Fargo Home MortgageThis case clarified the obligation of lenders to comply with a request to release a deed of trust and the liability associated with alleged failure to comply. Section 443.130, RSMo. required a lender to provide a sufficient deed of release to a borrower within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a demand from the borrower. The question was whether the duties placed on the lender survive the conclusion of the mortgagee/mortgagor (lender/borrower) relationship; or, stated another way, is a lender required to record a new deed of release after a demand from a borrower, even if the lender had released the deed prior to the demand. The Supreme Court’s decision answered that question and held that a lender terminates the relationship by recording a deed of release prior to receiving a demand from the borrower and, thereafter, has no further obligations under section 443.130. This was a case of first impression in Missouri.
Hodak v. City of St. PetersDefense of First Amendment Retaliation case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. $1.4 Million Dollar verdict for Plaintiff was reversed outright by the 8th Circuit in a holding that established controlling authority regarding standing and damages in First Amendment Retaliation litigation.
Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.
Please use the print button to print this profile page.