Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Payton Chiann Comer 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
payton-chiann-comer
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Payton Chiann Comer

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jul 25, 2023

Payton Chiann Comer vs. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri

Appellant

Payton Chiann Comer appealed the administrative suspension of her driving privileges after a breath test indicated a blood alcohol content above the legal limit. She argued the trial court erred in admitting the breath test result because the administering officer did not maintain continuous direct observation during the required 15-minute period. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the relevant regulation does not require direct observation, only that the officer reasonably ensure no oral intake using their senses.