Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

State Ex Rel. Matthew Stone 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-matthew-stone
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 State Ex Rel. Matthew Stone

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Date unavailable

State Ex Rel. Matthew Stone vs. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Et Al.

Appellant

Matthew Stone appealed the circuit court's denial of his petition for a permanent writ of mandamus against the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR). Stone sought a right-to-sue letter after MCHR terminated his discrimination complaint, arguing MCHR's employee, T.O., lacked the authority to make a "no probable cause" determination. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, finding the trial court misapplied the law by equating "dismissal for lack of probable cause" with "administrative closure" and failing to resolve conflicting evidence regarding T.O.'s authority to make such a determination.