Murray v. Missouri Real Estate Com'n, 18420
| Decision Date | 08 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 18420,18420 |
| Citation | 858 S.W.2d 238 |
| Parties | Edward L. MURRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MISSOURI REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Norman E. Rouse, Collins, Webster & Rouse, Joplin, for petitioner-appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Daryl R. Hylton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Respondent suspended appellant's real estate salesperson license for six months, followed by five years' probation. Appellant then filed a petition for a stay and judicial review of that order. The circuit court denied appellant's petition and affirmed respondent's order.
On appeal here appellant has two points relied on. They state:
Point I
The Administrative Hearing Commission erred in granting a motion for summary judgment for the benefit of the respondent as to Count I of the petition under the theory of collateral estoppel.
* * * * * *
The Missouri Real Estate Commission erred in disciplining the appellant based upon the erroneous findings of the Administrative Hearing Commission as to Count I of the complaint.
It is apparent that these points do not comply with the "wherein" and "why" requirements of Rule 84.04(d). Three things are required with respect to points relied on under that rule: (1) A statement of the action or ruling complained of; (2) why the ruling was erroneous; and (3) wherein the evidence 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).
The statement of facts in appellant's brief is also deficient. "The statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." Rule 84.04(c). A statement of facts, as is presented here, which consists of nothing more than abbreviated procedural history, fails to provide an understanding of the case and is deficient. Carrier, 852 S.W.2d at 198.
Failing to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review. Wehmeyer v. Bassett Realty, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 290, 291 (Mo.App.1992). See also Whalen v. College of the Ozarks, Inc., 851 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Mo.App.1993). Appellant has failed to preserve any issues for our review. A gratuitous examination of the record reveals no error, plain, Rule 84.13(c), or otherwise.
The judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Thompson, In re, 19698
...the "wherein" requirement of Rule 84.04(d). As such, it would not preserve anything for review. See Murray v. Missouri Real Estate Com'n, 858 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Mo.App.S.D.1993); White v. White, 846 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo.App.S.D.1993). The argument section of Wife's brief on this point, however......
-
State v. The Honorable Henry W. Westbrooke
...A statement of facts which provides nothing more than a procedural history of the case is deficient. Murray v. Missouri Real Estate Comm'n, 858 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Mo.App. S.D. 1993). Rule 84.04(i) requires that the statement of facts and argument portion of the brief "shall have specific page......
-
Skalecki v. Small, 22073
...no clue as to what evidence Defendants presented showing lack of probable cause or the required malice. In Murray v. Missouri Real Estate Comm'n, 858 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Mo.App.1993), a point relied on asserted "[t]he Administrative Hearing Commission erred in granting a motion for summary jud......
-
Angle v. Grant, 22753
...more than an abbreviated procedural history fails to provide an understanding of the case and is deficient. Murray v. Missouri Real Estate Comm'n, 858 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Mo.App.1993). A statement of facts which does not comply with Rule 84.04 and which fails to set forth material evidence pre......