Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Doug Nelson, 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
doug-nelson-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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Doug Nelson, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 14, 2019

Michael Holmes, Respondent, vs. Doug Nelson, et al., Appellants.

Appellant

Michael Holmes filed a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the State of Missouri or the City of St. Louis was responsible for paying a $2.5 million federal civil rights judgment awarded to him against two St. Louis police officers. The trial court granted summary judgment for Holmes, finding the State was required to indemnify the officers through the State Legal Expense Fund (SLEF). The appellate court affirmed, holding that the 2003 version of the SLEF statute applied to the officers' misconduct, which occurred in 2003, and that applying the 2005 amendments retrospectively would be unconstitutional. The court further found the State was required to indemnify, not merely reimburse, the officers.