Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

The Honorable I.I. Lamke, Circuit Judge, Division II, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, 401 East Main Street, Union, Missouri 63084. 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-honorable-ii-lamke-circuit-judge-division-ii-twentieth-judicial-circuit-401-east-main-street-union-missouri-63084
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Honorable I.I. Lamke, Circuit Judge, Division II, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, 401 East Main Street, Union, Missouri 63084.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

The Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, Matthew Becker, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge I. I. Lamke from enforcing a pre-trial order in a criminal case. The order required the State to produce a memorandum summarizing its corpus delicti evidence. The appellate court made its preliminary order in prohibition permanent, holding that the trial court's order improperly compelled the disclosure of the State's privileged work product and exceeded its authority.