Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Cale D. Seymour 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
cale-d-seymour
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Cale D. Seymour

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Mar 26, 2019

State of Missouri vs. Cale D. Seymour

Respondent

The State appealed the trial court's grant of a motion for judgment of acquittal for Cale Seymour, who was charged with failing to insure workers' compensation liability. The trial court found the charge was time-barred because the offense was discovered more than three years before filing. The appellate court affirmed, holding that an appeal from an acquittal based on a statute of limitations does not trigger double jeopardy, and that the "discovery of the offense" for statute of limitations purposes occurs when an objectively reasonable investigation by the Fraud and Noncompliance Unit concludes, which in this case was after an unreasonable delay in investigation.