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-schmitt-et-al
Cases Shown
2
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.
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.
Elad Gross appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Attorney General's Office (AGO) on his claims that the AGO violated the Sunshine Law and the Missouri Constitution's free speech protections. Gross also challenged the trial court's protective order closing discovery. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in closing discovery due to Gross's failure to provide a transcript. The court further held that the AGO properly complied with the Sunshine Law regarding record production delays and the closure of records related to potential litigation, thus rejecting the free speech retaliation claim.
Jessica Hicklin, sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile for first-degree murder, challenged the constitutionality of her sentence and Missouri's legislative response to Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana via a declaratory judgment action. The circuit court rejected her claims. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a declaratory judgment was the proper vehicle for challenging statutory validity, and that Missouri's scheme providing parole eligibility for Miller-impacted juveniles was constitutionally permissible and did not violate the separation of powers.