Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Carter Andrew Kinkead 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
carter-andrew-kinkead
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Carter Andrew Kinkead

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Aug 15, 2023

Carter Andrew Kinkead vs. Director of Revenue

Appellant

Carter Kinkead appealed the suspension of his driving privileges by the Director of Revenue after a DWI arrest. The trial court affirmed the suspension, finding the breath test valid. Kinkead argued on appeal that the arresting officer failed to conduct a proper 15-minute observation period before the breath test. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the breath test results, as the officer's brief breaks in direct observation did not violate the regulation's requirements for the observation period.