Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Michael Harris, 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
michael-harris-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

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 Michael Harris, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Date unavailable

Michael Harris, et al., Respondents, v. Starbucks Corporation, Appellant.

Respondent

Starbucks Corporation appealed the circuit court's denial of its combined motion to dismiss negligence claims and/or compel arbitration filed by former employees Michael Harris and Devin Jones-Ransom. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. It found Starbucks failed to comply with Rule 84.04 by providing an incorrect standard of review for the arbitration points. Additionally, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to dismiss because it was not a final judgment, and the court declined to extend interlocutory appeal jurisdiction.