Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JORDAN MARTIN 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
jordan-martin
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JORDAN MARTIN

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jan 5, 2024

JORDAN MARTIN, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Appellant

Jordan Martin appealed the dismissal of his pro se Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief as untimely. Martin had submitted a letter with his motion explaining that prison officials prevented its timely mailing. The motion court dismissed the motion without a hearing and without issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Martin's accompanying letter should have been considered part of his motion to allege timely filing, and that the motion court erred by not holding a hearing on the timeliness issue or issuing required findings.