St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

LOWTHER JOHNSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC, Defendant- 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
lowther-johnson-attorneys-at-law-llc-defendant
Cases Shown
1
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Corporate LawCivil LitigationReal Estate

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.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving LOWTHER JOHNSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Respondent

Premium Investments, LLC, sued Lowther Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLC, for legal malpractice, alleging inadequate advice regarding an estoppel certificate in a real estate lease transaction. The trial court granted summary judgment for Lowther Johnson, finding Premium could not prove causation for its alleged damages. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Premium failed to establish the causation element of its legal malpractice claim because it was contractually obligated to provide the certificate, its delay did not affect the transaction, and it could not have prevented the underlying sale.

Corporate LawCivil LitigationReal Estate