Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Patrick Starr, Maurice Charles, and Lee Francis 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
patrick-starr-maurice-charles-and-lee-francis
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Patrick Starr, Maurice Charles, and Lee Francis

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Sep 14, 2021

Patrick Starr, Maurice Charles, and Lee Francis vs. Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney

Appellant

Patrick Starr, Maurice Charles, and Lee Francis (Requestors) appealed a judgment in favor of the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney (Prosecutor) in their lawsuit alleging violations of Missouri's Sunshine Law. The trial court granted judgment as a matter of law for the Prosecutor, finding Requestors failed to prove their records requests were received by the designated custodian of records. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Requestors did not establish the necessary element of receipt by the custodian, nor did they prove apparent authority or substantial compliance with the statute.