Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

WILLIAM SCOTT SOURS, Movant- 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
william-scott-sours-movant
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 WILLIAM SCOTT SOURS, Movant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Jul 18, 2019

WILLIAM SCOTT SOURS, Movant-Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

Appellant

William Scott Sours appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside his conviction for receiving stolen property. Sours argued that his appointed post-conviction counsel abandoned him by improperly incorporating his pro se motion and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the amended information. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no clear error. It concluded that Sours invited the error regarding the amended motion and that appellate counsel made a strategic choice not to raise the information issue.