Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Walter Dallas 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
walter-dallas
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Walter Dallas

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / May 20, 2025

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Walter Dallas, Appellant.

Appellant

Walter Dallas appealed his convictions for stealing $25,000 or more, stealing a motor vehicle, and first-degree property damage, following a jury trial. He argued the trial court erred by allowing an FBI agent to testify about details of an ongoing investigation beyond what was necessary to explain subsequent police conduct. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting the testimony was not the only evidence on the disputed factual issue and the court had limited the testimony as requested. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if there was error, Dallas was not prejudiced due to ample cumulative evidence.