Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

The Daniel and Henry Company, Defendant, and Devereaux Murphy LLC 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
the-daniel-and-henry-company-defendant-and-devereaux-murphy-llc
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 The Daniel and Henry Company, Defendant, and Devereaux Murphy LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

DH Advisors, LLC (DHA) appealed a judgment enforcing an attorney's lien filed by Devereux Murphy, LLC (DM) for unpaid legal fees. DHA argued there was an express agreement absolving it of fee responsibility, that DM forfeited its fees by withdrawing without just cause, and that the trial court erred by not apportioning fees between DHA and Pivot Holdings, LLC, who were jointly represented. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no express agreement, that DM had just cause to withdraw due to an unforeseeable conflict, and that joint liability was proper without apportionment.