St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

state v vandergrift 669 sw3d 282

This authority appears in 23 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:state-v-vandergrift-669-sw3d-282
Citation Sample
State v. Vandergrift, 669 S.W.3d 282
Cases Shown
23
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 LitigationReal Estate

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help with an issue tied to state v vandergrift 669 sw3d 282?

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

21

distinguished

1

followed

1

Cases Citing state v vandergrift 669 sw3d 282

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 27, 2026

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. David K. Duncan, Sr., Appellant.

cited

Citation: State v. Vandergrift, 669 S.W.3d 282

David K. Duncan, Sr. was convicted of three counts of first-degree statutory rape and six counts of second-degree child molestation of his granddaughter. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial court properly admitted evidence of Duncan's statement to the victim that he had sex with his wife at the same age as the victim, ruling this was logically and legally relevant and not improper propensity evidence.

Criminal Law