Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

ERIC A. HINES 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
eric-a-hines
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 ERIC A. HINES

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / May 26, 2022

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. ERIC A. HINES, Appellant

Appellant

Eric A. Hines appealed his conviction for first-degree statutory sodomy, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements obtained through alleged coercive police interrogation tactics and by denying his motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation. The Southern District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The court found Hines' statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and that the delay in bringing him to trial was not presumptively prejudicial after accounting for delays caused by Hines.