Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
Missouri Case Party
Department of Corrections 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
- department-of-corrections
- Cases Shown
- 3
- 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.
Cases Involving Department of Corrections
Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.
Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
Richard M. Wright, Appellant Pro Se, v. Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
Maurice R. Charles vs. Department of Corrections
Maurice Charles appealed the circuit court's judgment granting the Department of Corrections' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Charles's petition for declaratory judgment alleged that the DOC's recalculation of his parole eligibility date violated the ex post facto clauses of the Missouri and United States Constitutions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that Charles's claims regarding the removal of the Board's discretion to convert consecutive sentences and the application of post-2008 regulations failed as a matter of law, adhering to prior precedent.