Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Peter B. Rall 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
peter-b-rall
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Peter B. Rall

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Aug 14, 2018

State of Missouri vs. Peter B. Rall

Respondent

The State appealed the trial court's judgment granting Peter Rall's Rule 29.12(b) motion, which sought to amend his felony stealing conviction to a misdemeanor based on State v. Bazell. The appellate court first affirmed the attorney general's authority to represent the State and the State's right to appeal. The court then reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant a Rule 29.12(b) motion after imposing sentence, as the rule does not provide an independent post-sentencing procedure.