Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Daniel S. Bell, 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
daniel-s-bell-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Daniel S. Bell, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jun 28, 2022

Jeschke AG Service, LLC, et al., vs. Daniel S. Bell, et al.

Respondent

Plaintiffs Jeschke AG Service, LLC, et al., sued Law Office Defendants and Attorney Defendants for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court dismissed the Law Office Defendants with prejudice for lack of capacity to be sued and dismissed the Attorney Defendants without prejudice based on claim splitting and the abatement doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Law Office Defendants, finding that unincorporated divisions of a corporation lack the capacity to be sued. However, it reversed the dismissal of the Attorney Defendants, holding that neither the abatement doctrine nor the rule against claim splitting applied because the parties in the parallel actions were not the same after a voluntary dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings against the Attorney Defendants.