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
david-j-harris
Cases Shown
2
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.
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.
David J. Harris appealed the circuit court's judgment which dismissed his petition for review, finding he lacked standing to challenge the Missouri Ethics Commission's (MEC) dismissal of a complaint. Harris had alleged the MEC used an improper legal standard when evaluating his complaint regarding the use of public funds for a ballot measure. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Harris failed to demonstrate that the MEC's dismissal directly affected his private legal rights, duties, or privileges, which is a prerequisite for standing under Section 536.150.
David J. Harris appealed the circuit court's judgment, which found he lacked standing to challenge the Missouri Secretary of State's (SOS) closure of an investigation into a complaint Harris filed. Harris's complaint alleged a violation of Section 115.646 by University City officials. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal, holding that Harris, as a complainant, has no statutory right to appeal the SOS's decision and failed to demonstrate that the SOS's action directly affected his private rights.