Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
Missouri Case Party
Maurice T. Davis 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
- maurice-t-davis
- 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Maurice T. Davis
Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.
Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable
Maurice T. Davis vs. State of Missouri
Maurice T. Davis appealed the denial of his motion to amend a prior judgment that had denied his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Davis argued the original judgment was not final because it failed to address a claim from his pro se motion. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial, holding that the circuit court lacked authority to alter the judgment after the appellate mandate issued, and that the PCR motion court was not required to address claims not included in the amended PCR motion.