Biggs v. Loida
| Decision Date | 12 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 34522,34522 |
| Parties | Neavle BIGGS (Employee), Respondent, v. Wilbert A. LOIDA et al., Appellants. . Louis District |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles A. Weber, St. Genevieve, for appellants.
Buerkle, Buerkle & Lowes, Jackson, for respondent.
This appeal is from a judgment affirming the final award of the Industrial Commission which awarded to respondent the sum of $11,371.32 for the loss of respondent's eye as the result of an accident which concededly arose out of and in the course of the respondent's employment.
Following the filing of appellants' brief the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the appellants' brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04, V.A.M.R. In the motion it was pointed out that the jurisdictional statement was insufficient; that the statement of facts was not a fair and concise statement of facts; that no page references to the transcript were provided; and that the points relied on failed to state wherein and why the rulings of the court were claimed to be erroneous. Our examination of the appellants' brief readily disclosed that there was merit in the respondent's motion in that it failed to comply with Rule 84.04, V.A.M.R., in each and all of the matters specified in the motion. However, even though the motion was well taken, in conformity with the principle that cases should be disposed of on their merits rather than on procedural grounds we denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, but on our own motion struck the appellants' brief and granted appellants additional time to file a new brief.
Appellants' second brief is but a scant improvement over the first, and is again the subject of attack by the respondent in his brief. The jurisdictional statement is acceptable, but the statement of facts is again not a fair and concise statement of facts and contains argument and conclusions. Furthermore, appellants have repeated, word for word, first brief had been filed, there remains an utter failure to specify '* * * wherein and why they (the rulings of the court) are claimed to be arroneous, * * *.' Rule 84.04(d). That requirement should not have presented any difficulty, for as respondent states, the scope of an appellate review in a workmen's compensation case is restricted to the four grounds specified in § 287.490, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. A mere statement that the court erred in some respect, without more, is nothing more than an abstract assertion, Lane v. Katt, Mo.App., 421 S.W.2d 544; Wachter v. Grogan, Mo.App., 410...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent v. Charlie Chicken, II, Inc., 70469
...we dismiss the appeal. Defendants have failed to comply with Rule 84.04 after being given ample opportunity to do so. See Biggs v. Loida, 488 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1972). See also Jones v. Jones, 819 S.W.2d 773 (Mo.App.1991). They also have failed to comply with Rules 81.18 and 81.12. These vi......
-
Starman v. John Wolfe, Inc.
...failure to comply with the rules. Crapisi v. Crapisi, Mo.App., 485 S.W.2d 635; Hughes v. Wilson, Mo.App., 485 S.W.2d 620; Biggs v. Loida, Mo.App., 488 S.W.2d 932; Geiler v. Boyer, Mo.App., 483 S.W.2d 'In view of the soon to be increased jurisdictional case load of this court, counsel are ca......
-
Griffin v. Evans Elec. Const. Co.
...It is firmly established that the scope of appellate review is limited to these four grounds specified in the statute. Biggs v. Loida, 488 S.W.2d 932, 933(2) (Mo.App.1972). However, further decisional guidelines have been set down with reference to these statutory grounds. In Miller v. Slei......
-
Kerr v. Ehinger Inc.
.... . .'. (Emphasis added.) Rule 84.04 applies with equal vigor to appeals generated under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Biggs v. Loida, 488 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1972). It is patently obvious that the two 'points' purportedly raised by appellants in their brief violate both the letter and spi......