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
fredrico-lowe-bey
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.
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.
Fredrico Lowe Bey appealed the dismissal of his petition alleging Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violations against the Missouri Department of Corrections and its Director. The circuit court had dismissed Bey's petition for failure to state a claim. The appellate court dismissed Bey's appeal due to significant deficiencies in his appellate brief, specifically non-compliance with Rule 84.04 regarding points relied on and statement of facts, which prevented a meaningful review of his claims.
Fredrico Lowe Bey appealed the circuit court's denial of his petition for trial de novo, which followed the dismissal of his small claims complaint against the Missouri Department of Corrections and its director. The circuit court denied the petition for trial de novo as untimely, citing a failure to include a correctional center account statement or filing fees. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that neither the relevant statutes nor rules impose such requirements as jurisdictional prerequisites for perfecting a trial de novo application, and Bey was not required to reapply for in forma pauperis status.