St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

state v mendez ulloa 525 sw3d 585

This authority appears in 8 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:state-v-mendez-ulloa-525-sw3d-585
Citation Sample
State v. Mendez-Ulloa, 525 S.W.3d 585
Cases Shown
8
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to state v mendez ulloa 525 sw3d 585?

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

8

Cases Citing state v mendez ulloa 525 sw3d 585

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 17, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.

cited

Citation: State v. Mendez-Ulloa, 525 S.W.3d 585

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation