Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Jason D. Palmer 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
jason-d-palmer
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Jason D. Palmer

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Apr 19, 2022

Jason D. Palmer, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Appellant

Jason Palmer appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Palmer's pro se motion was filed untimely, but he argued the late filing should be excused because the circuit court failed to inform him of the time limitations. The appellate court vacated the judgment, holding that Palmer's motion was untimely because his delivery to a CODS program triggered the 180-day filing period, and the circuit court's failure to inform him of his rights did not excuse the untimeliness in the absence of active misinformation. The case was remanded with directions to dismiss Palmer's motion.