Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

CALLIE MARIE FLOOD, Defendant- 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
callie-marie-flood-defendant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 CALLIE MARIE FLOOD, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 27, 2024

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. CALLIE MARIE FLOOD, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Callie Marie Flood appealed a circuit court order requiring her to pay $21,000 in restitution, entered nine months after her conviction for misdemeanor stealing. The original judgment stated restitution was "to be determined." The appellate court remanded the case, directing the circuit court to vacate the restitution order. It held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter a specific restitution amount after the final judgment, as the original judgment did not specify the amount, rendering the subsequent order void.