Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

SEBASTIAN A. RUST 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
sebastian-a-rust
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 SEBASTIAN A. RUST

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Dec 4, 2023

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. SEBASTIAN A. RUST, Appellant

Appellant

Sebastian Rust was convicted of misdemeanor nonsupport and sentenced to probation. On appeal, Rust argued that the conviction was not supported by substantial evidence, contending the state failed to prove a legal support obligation and that his indigency constituted good cause for nonpayment. The Southern District of Missouri affirmed the conviction, holding that the state only needed to prove the existence of a civil child support order and its knowing violation, and that indigency for counsel appointment does not, as a matter of law, establish good cause for nonsupport.