Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

MATTHEW TODD TETMEYER, Defendant- 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
matthew-todd-tetmeyer-defendant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 MATTHEW TODD TETMEYER, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Oct 31, 2024

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. MATTHEW TODD TETMEYER, Defendant-Appellant

Appellant

Matthew Todd Tetmeyer appealed his conviction for violating an order of protection against his father, J.T. He argued that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence regarding a separate, expired order of protection obtained by his mother, S.T., against him, which he claimed was relevant to his knowledge of the active order. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding the evidence because it was not relevant to the specific order of protection at issue and its probative value was outweighed by its potential to confuse the issues.