Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Edward Hughes 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
edward-hughes
Cases Shown
2
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Edward Hughes

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Supreme Court of Missouri / Dec 18, 2018

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Edward Hughes, Appellant.

Appellant

Edward Hughes appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress drugs and drug paraphernalia found in his bag during a warrantless search incident to arrest, arguing the search violated Arizona v. Gant and State v. Carrawell. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Court found it unnecessary to reach the Fourth Amendment issue, holding that any error in denying the motion to suppress was not prejudicial because sufficient additional evidence, including defense counsel's cross-examination and stipulation to lab reports, supported the conviction.