Carrier v. City of Springfield, 18165
| Decision Date | 30 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 18165,18165 |
| Citation | 852 S.W.2d 196 |
| Parties | Gala CARRIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stephen R. Soutee, Marionville, for appellant.
Dennis Budd, Asst. City Atty., Springfield, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of respondent, City of Springfield, and against appellant, Gala Carrier. Following filing of appellant's brief, respondent filed its Motion to Dismiss Appeal. That motion was taken with the case. It is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
This case is an aftermath of State ex rel. Fuhr v. Carrier, 765 S.W.2d 671 (Mo.App.1989). Appellant brought the action that is now before this court in order to seek damages from respondent "for the loss of use of [the 1977 Chevrolet Pickup]" that was the subject of that case. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is directed to the "Statement of Facts" and the "Point Relied Upon" that are set out in appellant's brief. Respondent asserts that those parts of appellant's brief do not comply with requirements of Rule 84.04(c) and 84.04(d).
Appellant's "Statement of Facts" consists of three paragraphs containing a total of seven sentences. It consists of 19 lines that cover approximately three-fourths of one page. The first paragraph advises that appellant filed both a petition and, with leave of the trial court, a "First Amended Petition" and that respondent filed an answer to the amended petition. The second paragraph reports that respondent pleaded three affirmative defenses in its answer, sovereign immunity, statute of limitations and res judicata, and that respondent's answer claimed that appellant "had failed to join a necessary and indispensable party, and inferred that a bailor-bailee relationship did not exist between [appellant] and [respondent]." The third states the date when the trial court "took up and heard" the motion for summary judgment that was granted; that "[t]he trial court sustained the motion," and that "[a]ppellant filed her Notice of Appeal," as well as the date when it was filed.
Rule 84.04(c) prescribes what is required in a statement of facts. It states:
The statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument. Such statement of facts may be followed by a resume of the testimony of each witness relevant to the points presented.
Rule 84.04(d) states:
The points relied on shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous....
Setting out only abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the court is not a compliance with this Rule.
The single point relied on in appellant's brief says, "The trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of [respondent] and against [appellant] for the reason that the motion for summary judgment was not sustainable on any theory." Respondent suggests that "[a]ppellant's statement of facts consists of nothing more than an abbreviated procedural history of the case"; that it "wholly fails to provide an immediate, accurate, and complete understanding of the facts of the case." This court agrees.
The statement of facts in this case is even more deficient than was the statement of facts in State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transportation Comm'n v. Pipkin, 818 S.W.2d 688 (Mo.App.1991), a case in which this court declared that "[t]he [appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plunk v. Hedrick Concrete Products Corp.
...the lack of it, or other matters supports the position the party asserts the trial court should have taken. Carrier v. City of Springfield, 852 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Mo.App.1993). In this instance, the point does not specify wherein and why the ruling was erroneous. An insufficient point relied ......
-
Stroup v. Facet Automotive Filter Co.
...appellant contends should have been made. See also Jones v. Wolff, 887 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Mo.App.E.D.1994); Carrier v. City of Springfield, 852 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Mo.App.S.D.1993); Bentlage v. Springgate, 793 S.W.2d 228, 229 Appellant's points relied on fail to state wherein or why the action c......
-
Wilson v. Danuser Mach. Co., Inc.
...wherein the evidence (or lack of it) supports the position the party asserts the trial court should have taken. Carrier v. City of Springfield, 852 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Mo.App.1993). Here, the point does not specify wherein and why the trial court erred. An insufficient point relied on preserve......
-
Crowe v. Clairday
...lack of it, or other matters support the position the party asserts the trial court should have taken. See Carrier v. City of Springfield, 852 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Mo.App.S.D.1993). Plaintiff's point is clearly in violation of Rule 84.04(d). A point which states that a judgment is against the w......