Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Paul E. Gill 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
paul-e-gill
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Paul E. Gill

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 22, 2022

State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Paul E. Gill, Respondent.

Respondent

Paul E. Gill was charged with possession of a controlled substance after methamphetamine was found when he called 911 to report a friend's death. The circuit court dismissed the charge, finding Gill immune under Missouri's Good Samaritan Law, Section 195.205. The State appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred by placing the burden of proof on the State and by narrowly interpreting the "good faith" requirement of the statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.