Skip to content
St. Louis Counsel
Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Umar Muhammad 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
umar-muhammad
Cases Shown
2
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation

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.

Free Criminal Law ConsultationCall About A Criminal Law Claim

Cases Involving Umar Muhammad

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jul 16, 2019

Umar Muhammad vs. State of Missouri

Appellant

Umar Muhammad appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which the motion court found untimely. Muhammad argued that his untimely filing should be excused due to his privately retained counsel's erroneous advice regarding the filing deadline, constituting third-party interference. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that reliance on retained counsel's advice does not qualify as active third-party interference to excuse a mandatory filing deadline.

Criminal LawCivil Litigation