Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

State ex rel. Brandt Headrick, Relator 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
state-ex-rel-brandt-headrick-relator
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 State ex rel. Brandt Headrick, Relator

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 31, 2019

State ex rel. Brandt Headrick, Relator, vs. Hon. Benjamin F. Lewis, Respondent.

Appellant

Brandt Headrick, plaintiff in a medical negligence action, sought a writ of prohibition against Respondent Judge Benjamin F. Lewis, who ordered Headrick to undergo a physically invasive test to determine his alleged loss of smell and taste. Headrick contended the order failed to comply with Rule 60.01(a)(3)'s requirements for specifying test details. The appellate court granted the writ, holding that the judge exceeded his authority by failing to specify critical details of the ordered test, particularly by not identifying the "dye-like fluid" to be used. The preliminary writ of prohibition was made permanent, prohibiting the respondent from enforcing the order.