Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

The Honorable Michael Noble 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-michael-noble
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Michael Noble

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Relators, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen Research & Development, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis from trying claims of plaintiffs who were not injured in St. Louis. The circuit court had denied the pharmaceutical companies' motion to transfer these claims. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion. The Court reaffirmed that permissive joinder cannot create venue in an otherwise improper forum and found that a newly enacted statute, section 508.013.1, did not apply because the initial trial docket setting was not an "actual trial date" as contemplated by the statute.