Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Tim Laske, Individually and on Behalf of Others 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
tim-laske-individually-and-on-behalf-of-others
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Tim Laske, Individually and on Behalf of Others

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Tim Laske, a shareholder, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his class action petition against corporate officers for breach of fiduciary duties and self-dealing. Laske alleged that the officers secured a lower stock purchase price for Bancorp shares and personally benefited, directly harming shareholders. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Laske's claims were derivative, not direct, because the alleged harm of diminished stock value was common to all shareholders and necessarily diminished the corporation's value. The court also denied the Respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.