Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Mun Choi, 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
mun-choi-et-al
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Civil Litigation
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Mun Choi, Et Al

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Feb 2, 2021

State of Missouri, Ex Rel., Eric Schmitt, Attorney General vs. Mun Choi, Et Al

Respondent

The State of Missouri, ex rel. Attorney General Eric Schmitt, challenged a University of Missouri System Rule prohibiting employees from possessing firearms in their vehicles on university campuses. The State argued the Rule conflicted with Section 571.030.6, RSMo, and was unconstitutional. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Rule was preempted by the statute to the extent it prohibited firearms in locked, non-visible vehicles. However, the court affirmed the trial court's finding that the remaining portions of the Rule, which prohibit other weapons and the discharge of firearms, are constitutional under strict scrutiny review. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.