Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Apex Clayton Inc. 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
apex-clayton-inc
Cases Shown
2
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Apex Clayton Inc.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Apex Clayton, Inc. appealed an amended judgment in favor of limited partners on claims of breach of contract and fiduciary duty, challenging the overruling of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Supreme Court of Missouri first determined that Apex's notice of appeal was timely because the limited partners' motion for attorney fees was presented as a motion to amend the judgment, making the subsequent amended judgment a new judgment for appeal purposes. However, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Apex failed to preserve its substantive claims for appellate review by not filing a motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence.