Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Col. Eric T. Olsen, et al. 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
col-eric-t-olsen-et-al
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Col. Eric T. Olsen, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Oct 20, 2020

Charles Carmen, Appellant, vs. Col. Eric T. Olsen, et al., Respondents.

Respondent

Charles Carmen appealed the denial of his petition for removal from the sex offender registry, arguing the trial court erred in its interpretation of § 589.401. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, dismissed the appeal. The court found Carmen's brief failed to comply with multiple mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04, including an inadequate statement of facts, a deficient point relied on, and an argument section lacking legal analysis and specific record references. Consequently, the court determined that nothing was preserved for review, preventing a disposition on the merits.