Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. RUDY TAPIA and DOUGLAS ROGERS, Relators 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-of-missouri-ex-rel-rudy-tapia-and-douglas-rogers-relators
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel. RUDY TAPIA and DOUGLAS ROGERS, Relators

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Relators Rudy Tapia and Douglas Rogers sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Respondent Judge from taking further action in their case, except to order a change of judge. The underlying case was initially filed in an improper venue, Miller County, and subsequently transferred to Greene County. After the transfer and designation of a new judge, Relators filed an application for a change of judge, which the Respondent Judge denied. The appellate court made the preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the Respondent Judge erred in denying the change of judge application because it was timely and not barred by Rules 51.02 or 51.06.