St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

state ex rel zahnd v van amburg 533 sw3d 227

This authority appears in 17 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:state-ex-rel-zahnd-v-van-amburg-533-sw3d-227
Citation Sample
State ex rel. Zahnd v. Van Amburg, 533 S.W.3d 227
Cases Shown
17
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 cases citing this authority

These links route legal-research traffic from this authority profile into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the authority itself or the cited cases map to a practical client issue.

Civil LitigationCriminal LawFamily LawCorporate Law

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to state ex rel zahnd v van amburg 533 sw3d 227?

This authority profile is public case-law research. If the authority connects to your claim or dispute, Ott Law Firm can help evaluate evidence, deadlines, and next steps.

Free ConsultationCall Ott Law Firm

Citation Treatment

cited

14

followed

3

Cases Citing state ex rel zahnd v van amburg 533 sw3d 227

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

cited

Citation: State ex rel. Zahnd v. Van Amburg, 533 S.W.3d 227

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld section 577.023.2, which allows circuit courts rather than juries to determine whether prior DWI convictions occurred on separate occasions for purposes of charging a persistent offender felony. The court rejected the defendant's argument that this procedure facially violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, finding the statute constitutional and that the circuit court lacked authority to dismiss the felony charge.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation