Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Karen A. Quinn 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
karen-a-quinn
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Karen A. Quinn

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 30, 2023

State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Karen A. Quinn, Respondent.

Respondent

The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's dismissal of criminal charges against Karen A. Quinn for murder, robbery, and armed criminal action. The trial court had dismissed the charges with prejudice, citing the State's alleged discovery violations and a speedy trial violation. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for reinstatement of charges, holding that the State did not violate discovery rules because it diligently sought the federal report and the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal agency. The court also found that dismissing the serious charges with prejudice was an abuse of discretion and that the speedy trial claim failed as it was based on the erroneous discovery finding.