St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

state v carpenter 605 sw3d 355

This authority appears in 25 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:state-v-carpenter-605-sw3d-355
Citation Sample
State v. Carpenter, 605 S.W.3d 355
Cases Shown
25
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 LawPersonal InjuryEmployment LawFamily LawInsurance Bad Faith

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to state v carpenter 605 sw3d 355?

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

23

distinguished

1

followed

1

Cases Citing state v carpenter 605 sw3d 355

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

cited

Citation: State v. Carpenter, 605 S.W.3d 355

The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.

Personal InjuryCivil Litigation