Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

JULIUS D. PARHAM 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
julius-d-parham
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 JULIUS D. PARHAM

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / May 23, 2022

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. JULIUS D. PARHAM, Appellant

Appellant

Julius D. Parham was convicted of methamphetamine possession and resisting arrest after officers pursued him for riding a bicycle without headlights. On appeal, Parham challenged the trial court's permission for the state to instruct the venire panel during voir dire and the sufficiency of evidence for his resisting arrest conviction. The appellate court declined plain error review for the voir dire claim, finding no manifest injustice. However, it reversed the resisting arrest conviction, concluding there was insufficient evidence that officers were attempting an arrest or that Parham should have known of such an attempt.