Butterbaugh v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 12 of Jackson County, KCD
| Decision Date | 03 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | John BUTTERBAUGH and Juanita Butterbaugh, Appellants, v. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NO. 12 OF JACKSON COUNTY, Missouri, et al., Respondents. 26471. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Paul E. Panek, Belton, for appellants.
William K. Poindexter, Kansas City, for respondents.
Before DIXON, C.J., and SHANGLER and WASSERSTROM, JJ.
Plaintiffs, John and Juanita Butterbaugh, sought a declaratory judgment asserting that defendant's charge for water use constituted an unconstitutional special tax within the prohibition of Article 10, Section 3 of the Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S., and that said charges violated due process, while denying them equal protection of the law, all contrary to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 10; Article 10, Section 1; and Article 6, Section 26, of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Plaintiffs further sought a mandatory injunction, prohibiting the District's mode of charging for water use, and ordering restitution of sums already expended. From a judgment finding that they had failed to meet their burden of proof, and that the charges were authorized by law, they appeal.
Actions for declaratory and injunctive relief are civil proceedings and are governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This being so, the form and content of appellant's brief must comply with Rule 84.04, V.A.M.R., and sub-parts thereunder. The purpose of this rule is not only to give the appellate court a short, concise summary of what appellant claims the trial court did wrong and why he claims it was wrong, but also to inform respondent's counsel just what appellant's contentions really are, and what he is required to answer. Hughes v. Wilson, 485 S.W.2d 620 (Mo.App.1972); Murphy v. Deksnis, 476 S.W.2d 150 (Mo.App.1972). Appellant's brief fails in many obvious particulars to comply with the simple and plain requirements of Rule 84.04.
In considering the infirmities of appellant's brief, we note that the statement of facts is argumentative and thus constitutes a clear violation of Rule 84.04(c) (Geiler v. Boyer, 483 S.W.2d 773 (Mo.App.1972)); but it has prejudiced neither respondent nor our review and therefore will be overlooked.
This court, however, has no duty to search the appeal record in order to ascertain appellant's points on appeal and determine whether or not the trial court erred. School Services of Mo., Inc. v. Caton, 419 S.W.2d 954 (Mo.App.1967); Hoover v. Whisner, 373 S.W.2d 176 (Mo.App.1963). To satisfy the requirements of Rule 84.04(d), a point must be clearly stated as a point, a ruling must be stated, and reasons must be stated to show why the ruling was wrong. Chambers v. Kansas City, 446 S.W.2d 833 (Mo.1969). Furthermore, it is clear that to comply with Subsection (d), the points relied on should constitute a short, concise outline of the argument portion of appellant's brief on appeal. Conser v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 266 S.W.2d 587 (Mo.1954), cert. den., 348 U.S. 828, 75 S.Ct. 45, 99 L.Ed. 653 (1954). In contrast, appellant's point rambles through four pages of text in the form of argument. In addition, authorities are not listed, as specifically required by Subsection (d). As would naturally follow from the lack of a clear, concise point, the argument portion of appellant's brief in no way corresponds to a discernible point. This infirmity is a direct violation of Subsection (e) of Rule 84.04, which provides that the argument shall substantially follow the order of the points relief on.
The court, in Hughes v. Wilson, supra, 485 S.W.2d at 621, and the Supreme Court, in Domijan v. Harp, 340 S.W.2d 728, 732(3) (Mo.1960), noted, as mentioned above, that one purpose of Rule 84.04(d) was to insure that respondent's counsel is informed as to the nature of appellant's contentions. That respondent herein was not so informed, and that prejudice resulted therefrom, is evident from respondent's brief on appeal, which merely addresses the findings of the trial court, urging that they were not erroneous. The net result of appellant's disregard is the placement of this cause in a posture not capable of decision. Appellant has presented no issue to respondent and no issue to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas, No. WD 63248 (MO 2/22/2005)
...appellate procedure, when it prejudices neither respondent nor the court of appeals' review, Butterbaug v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 12 of Jackson County, 512 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Mo. App. 1974), and when the issues presented are important. State v. Miller, 815 S.W.2d 28, 31 (Mo. App. 1991)......
-
Barber v. M. F. A. Milling Co.
...appeal or the argument portion of an appellant's brief to come by the meaning of a point on appeal. Butterbaugh v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 12, 512 S.W.2d 445, 447(3) (Mo.App.1974); In re Estate of Barks, 488 S.W.2d 928, 930(5) (Mo.App.1972). The only manner in which we could ascertain......
-
Cooperative Ass'n No. 37 v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., LOUIS-SAN
...the transcript on appeal or the argument portion of Frisco's brief. We are not required to do either. Butterbaugh v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 12, 512 S.W.2d 445, 447(3) (Mo.App.1974); In re Estate of Barks, 488 S.W.2d 928, 930(5) (Mo.App.1972). Nonetheless, it suffices to say that the ......
-
Simpson v. Island View Sales Corp.
...points are not recognizable from an appellant's brief, courts are not willing to speculate. Butterbaugh v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 12 of Jackson County, 512 S.W.2d 445, 447(6) (Mo.App.1974). For many years the courts have sounded repeated caveats to appellants who ignore the rules rel......