Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

BERT LEE MACE Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
bert-lee-mace
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving BERT LEE MACE

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jan 29, 2020

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. BERT LEE MACE, Appellant

Appellant

Bert Mace was convicted of criminally-negligent DWI after striking a teenager with an ATV at night without headlights. On appeal, Mace's brief presented nine points, all of which violated Rule 84.04 regarding form and content. Despite these significant briefing deficiencies, the appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence challenges, concluding that a rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction, finding sufficient evidence for actual physical control, intoxication, that the ATV was a motor vehicle on a public roadway, and criminal negligence.