Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Joshua Steven Collins 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
joshua-steven-collins
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Joshua Steven Collins

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases
Appellant

Joshua Steven Collins appealed his convictions for tampering with a judicial officer and second-degree harassment. He challenged the second-degree harassment statute as unconstitutionally overbroad, argued insufficient evidence supported his harassment conviction, and claimed a double jeopardy violation for being sentenced on both charges. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the harassment statute is not overbroad, there was sufficient evidence for the conviction, and the dual sentences did not violate double jeopardy.