Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Joseph E. Vaughn 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
joseph-e-vaughn
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Joseph E. Vaughn

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 28, 2021

State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Joseph E. Vaughn, Respondent.

Respondent

The State of Missouri appealed the circuit court's dismissal of criminal charges against Joseph E. Vaughn, who was found unconscious with drug paraphernalia. The circuit court dismissed the charges, finding that Missouri's "Good Samaritan Law," § 195.205, applied to prohibit prosecution. The State argued that § 195.205 "effectively amended" the possession statutes, and thus § 1.160 should bar its retroactive application. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that § 195.205 is a new statutory provision and not an amendment, so § 1.160 does not apply.