Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Brad Frank, et al. 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
brad-frank-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Brad Frank, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jun 18, 2019

Brad Frank, et al., Appellants, vs. Enviro-Tech Services, Respondent.

Appellant

Brad Frank and other Class Representatives appealed the trial court's denial of their amended motion for class certification in their action against Enviro-Tech Services for unpaid overtime compensation. The trial court denied certification based on a perceived lack of numerosity, requiring affidavits from most potential class members. The appellate court reversed this finding, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by misinterpreting the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a). The case was remanded for the trial court to evaluate the remaining class certification elements.