536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976), 59167, Murphy v. Carron

Docket Nº59167.
Citation536 S.W.2d 30
Party NameLucille V. MURPHY, Respondent, v. Cecelia CARRON and Paul Carron, Appellants.
Case DateMay 05, 1976
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 30

536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976)

Lucille V. MURPHY, Respondent,

v.

Cecelia CARRON and Paul Carron, Appellants.

No. 59167.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

May 5, 1976

Page 31

John A. Schneider, Hillsboro, for appellants.

Mrs. Alice L. C. Kramer, Brunson, Hollingsworth & Associates, Hillsboro, for respondent.

DONNELLY, Judge.

In this court-tried case, Lucille V. Murphy seeks to recover money which she asserts was loaned by her to Cecelia Carron and Paul Carron. The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $9,100. The Carrons appealed to the St. Louis District of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. The cause was transferred here by order of this Court. We decide the cause 'the same as on original appeal.' Mo.Const., Art. V, § 10.

We ordered the transfer of this case and two other cases (In re Novak, Mo., 536 S.W.2d 33; and Roth v. Flieg, Mo., 536 S.W.2d 39) primarily to consider and put to rest as soon as possible questions which have arisen about the scope of review in court-tried civil cases since the revision of our Rule 73.01, effective January 1, 1975.

Before its revision, Rule 73.01(d) provided, in part, that on appeal of a case tried by the court without a jury:

'The appellate court shall review the case upon both the law and the evidence as in suits of an equitable nature. The judgment shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses.' (Emphasis added.)

In the revision, the italicized portion of the rule was deleted.

Rule 73.01, as revised, provides in subdivision 3, in part, that on appeal of a case tried by the court without a jury:

'(a) The court shall review the case upon both the law and the evidence as in suits of an equitable nature.

'(b) Due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to have judged the credibility of witnesses.'

It is suggested, on the one hand, that by deletion of the words italicized above, the Court abandoned the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review and adopted a 'de novo' standard of review. It is suggested, on the other hand, that Rule 73.01 still requires that review be 'as in suits of an equitable nature' and that the 'clearly erroneous' standard is an essential part of the scope of review of suits of an equitable nature.

We must recognize that the law in Missouri as to the scope of appellate review of suits of an equitable nature is in a state of confusion, largely as a result of an attempted use of de novo and clearly erroneous in the same standard of review. Those interested will find the cases in Vol. 3A, Missouri Digest, Appeal and Error, k1009(1) to (4).

Page 32

It is essential now that the Bench and Bar of Missouri be given some sense of direction on the question.

Accordingly, appellate 'review * * * as in suits of an equitable nature,' as found in Rule 73.01, is construed to mean that the decree or judgment of the trial court wil be sustained by the appellate court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. Appellate courts should exercise the power to set aside a decree or judgment on the ground that it is 'against the weight of the evidence' with caution and with a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong. The use of the words de novo and clearly erroneous is no longer appropriate in appellate review of cases under Rule 73.01.

On November...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6938 practice notes
  • 1 S.W.3d 52 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999), WD56935, Wright v. Wright
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • September 7, 1999
    ...Standard of Review Our review of provisions in a divorce decree as to the division of marital property is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). Crews v. Crews, 949 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Mo. App. 1997). We will affirm the decision of the trial court, unless there is no subs......
  • 100 S.W.3d 891 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003), WD 61691, Psychiatric Healthcare Corp. of Missouri v. Department of Social Services
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • April 1, 2003
    ...is the same as in any other court-tried case. Laclede County. v. Douglass, 43 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Mo. banc 2001). In Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), the Supreme Court declared that the standard of appellate review for any case decided by the court without a jury, including......
  • 117 S.W.3d 140 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003), WD 61718, Riverside-Quindaro Bend Levee Dist., Platte County, Missouri v. Missouri American Water Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • June 3, 2003
    ...its claims. This appeal followed. Standard of Review The standard of review in a court-tried case is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the wei......
  • 123 S.W.3d 227 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003), WD 61981, Engeman v. Engeman
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • October 28, 2003
    ...and Father. DISCUSSION As with other court-tried cases, we review dissolution judgments under the standard provided by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We will affirm unless we determine that the trial court's judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, it is agai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6945 cases
  • 1 S.W.3d 52 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999), WD56935, Wright v. Wright
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 7, 1999
    ...Standard of Review Our review of provisions in a divorce decree as to the division of marital property is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). Crews v. Crews, 949 S.W.2d 659, 663 (Mo. App. 1997). We will affirm the decision of the trial court, unless there is no subs......
  • 100 S.W.3d 891 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003), WD 61691, Psychiatric Healthcare Corp. of Missouri v. Department of Social Services
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 1, 2003
    ...is the same as in any other court-tried case. Laclede County. v. Douglass, 43 S.W.3d 826, 827 (Mo. banc 2001). In Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976), the Supreme Court declared that the standard of appellate review for any case decided by the court without a jury, including......
  • 117 S.W.3d 140 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003), WD 61718, Riverside-Quindaro Bend Levee Dist., Platte County, Missouri v. Missouri American Water Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 3, 2003
    ...its claims. This appeal followed. Standard of Review The standard of review in a court-tried case is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the wei......
  • 123 S.W.3d 227 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003), WD 61981, Engeman v. Engeman
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 28, 2003
    ...and Father. DISCUSSION As with other court-tried cases, we review dissolution judgments under the standard provided by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We will affirm unless we determine that the trial court's judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, it is agai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles