Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Rachel Nixon 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
rachel-nixon
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Rachel Nixon

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 30, 2023

State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Rachel Nixon, Respondent.

Respondent

The State of Missouri appealed the trial court's judgment dismissing criminal charges against Rachel Nixon with prejudice, alleging discovery violations and a speedy trial violation. The trial court had found that the State made a willful or bad faith discovery violation by failing to produce an ATF report and that further delays would violate Nixon's right to a speedy trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State did not violate discovery rules because the ATF report was not subject to the trial court's jurisdiction under federal Touhy regulations, and therefore the speedy trial claim also failed.