Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

State ex rel. LG Chem, LTD., Relator 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
state-ex-rel-lg-chem-ltd-relator
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 State ex rel. LG Chem, LTD., Relator

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

LG Chem, Ltd., a Korean company, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the St. Louis County circuit court from enforcing its order denying LG Chem's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The underlying action involved a products liability claim by Peter Bishop, who alleged injury from an LG Chem battery purchased from a third-party distributor in Missouri. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that LG Chem lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy due process, as the product's entry into the state was due to the unilateral action of a third party, not LG Chem's targeted conduct.