Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Elicia Milton 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
elicia-milton
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Elicia Milton

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 15, 2022

Elicia Milton, Appellant, vs. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., Respondents.

Appellant

Elicia Milton appealed the circuit court's denial of her petition for expungement of her arrest record for first-degree statutory sodomy. The circuit court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding Milton could not prove no charges would be pursued due to the absence of a statute of limitations. The Eastern District reversed and remanded, holding that Section 610.123.3 and Rule 155.04(b) unequivocally mandate an evidentiary hearing for expungement petitions, and the circuit court's assumption about future charges was speculative without evidence.