Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Joshua Lasley 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
joshua-lasley
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Joshua Lasley

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 4, 2025

Joshua Lasley, Respondent, vs. St. Louis County, et al., Appellants.

Respondent

Joshua Lasley, a St. Louis County police officer, appealed a disciplinary action, but the St. Louis County Board of Police Commissioners sought to delegate his appeal to a hearing officer. Lasley filed for a writ of prohibition, arguing the Board lacked authority to delegate. The trial court issued a permanent writ, which the Board appealed, also arguing the case was moot. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Board lacks explicit authority to delegate disciplinary appeal hearings and that a justiciable controversy remained, thus the case was not moot.