Doehler v. Village of Cool Valley
| Decision Date | 05 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 34898,34898 |
| Parties | Ernest N. DOEHLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The VILLAGE OF COOL VALLEY, and Orville Dewing, Defendants-Respondents. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Steiner & Fenlon, Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Carter, Bull, Baer, Presberg & Lee, Doris J. Banta, George E. Lee, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Ernest N. Doehler, appeals from a jury verdict and judgment entered in favor of the defendants-respondents, The Village of Cool Valley, a municipal corporation, and Orville Dewing, in a suit for personal injuries in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Due to the appellant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04(c) and Rule 84.04(d) of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, V.A.M.R., we dismiss this appeal as authorized by Rule 84.08.
Rule 84.04(c) of the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the appellant's brief shall contain a statement of facts that The appellant has failed to comply with this requirement in that the appellant's statement of facts was (1) unfair in that the plaintiff-appellant presented a statement that supported his position and excluded relevant facts which were favorable to the defense; (2) argumentative in that plaintiff-appellant made such statements as, 'Defendant's evidence was contradictory throughout'; and (3) the resume of the testimony of each witness was not fairly or concisely stated nor was it entirely relevant to the 'Points Relied On.' In the case of Ritter v. Ritter, 394 S.W.2d 78, 80 (Mo.App.1965), the court stated that, The appellant failed to comply with Rule 84.04(c) in this instance.
Rule 84.04(d) prohibits the setting out only of abstract statements of the law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the lower court. Appellant, under the heading 'Points and Authorities,' sets out six pages of abstract statements of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Midwest Lumber Co., Inc. v. Sellers
...in other instances quoting substantial portions thereof. Patterson v. Wilmont, 245 S.W.2d 116, 119 (Mo.1952); Doehler v. Village of Cool Valley, 498 S.W.2d 621, 622 (Mo.App.1973); Kansas City v. Howe, 416 S.W.2d 683, 690-91 (Mo.App.1967); Kersting v. City of Ferguson, 408 S.W.2d 165, 166 ...
-
Estate of DeGraff
...S.W.2d 771, 773 (Mo.App.1976); Cady v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 512 S.W.2d 882, 885 (Mo.App.1974); Doehler v. Village of Cool Valley, 498 S.W.2d 621, 622 (Mo.App.1973); and Geiler v. Boyer, 483 S.W.2d 773, 774 (Mo.App.1972). Moreover, statements of a purely argumentative nature are......
-
D. M. H., In Interest of, 35408
...relevant to the issues to be determined. This violation of the rules would warrant dismissal of the appeal. Doehler v. Village of Cool Valley, 498 S.W.2d 621 (Mo.App.1973). We do not dismiss because this case involves the welfare of a child which is paramount to the interests of any of the ......