St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Case Authority

williams v state 168 sw3d 433

This authority appears in 82 citation records in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive.

Canonical ID
case:williams-v-state-168-sw3d-433
Citation Sample
Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 433
Cases Shown
50
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 williams v state 168 sw3d 433?

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

79

followed

3

Cases Citing williams v state 168 sw3d 433

Showing up to 50 opinion records linked to this authority.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 13, 2026

Harry Little, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.

cited

Citation: Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 433

The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief for Harry Little's convictions for murder in the second degree, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Trial counsel's decisions not to call an alibi witness and not to argue a specific alternative perpetrator in closing argument constituted reasonable trial strategy rather than ineffective assistance of counsel.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation