Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
Missouri Case Party
Larry Daniel Brashier 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
- larry-daniel-brashier
- Cases Shown
- 2
- 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Larry Daniel Brashier
Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.
Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
State of Missouri vs. Larry Daniel Brashier
Larry Brashier, charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, moved to suppress statements he made during a police interrogation in an emergency room, alleging Miranda violations and involuntariness. The trial court granted the motion without specific findings. The State appealed, arguing the trial court's written order was inconsistent with its oral statements that Brashier was not in custody. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the unambiguous written order controls over oral comments and that the State's appeal was fatally flawed for failing to challenge the potential basis of involuntariness.