Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Andrew Niemeier 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
andrew-niemeier
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Corporate Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Andrew Niemeier

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Andrew Niemeier sued Charles Russell Williams III and Green Peak Capital Partners, LLC, alleging breach of an oral contract and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a fifty percent ownership stake in Green Peak. The jury found in Niemeier's favor on both claims, and the circuit court awarded damages and specific performance. The appellate court reversed the judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding no mutual agreement on material terms, and vacated the associated damages and specific performance. However, the court affirmed the judgment on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, concluding there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find an actionable misrepresentation, reasonable reliance, and intent not to perform.