Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Missouri Secretary of State, et al. 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
missouri-secretary-of-state-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Missouri Secretary of State, et al.

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Raymond McCarty and other registered Missouri voters challenged the results of the November 2024 election approving Proposition A, an initiative petition. They alleged the ballot title's summary statement and fiscal note summary were misleading, constituting an election irregularity, and that Proposition A violated single subject and clear title requirements. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed its original jurisdiction over the election irregularity claims but dismissed the constitutional validity claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court ultimately found no election irregularity, holding that the ballot title was not materially inaccurate or misleading, and thus upheld the election results for Proposition A.