Tidwell v. Gulledge
Decision Date | 19 September 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 30831,30831 |
Citation | 349 S.W.2d 404 |
Parties | Lillie TIDWELL, (Plaintiff) Appellant, v. Leon GULLEDGE, (Defendant) Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Frank Mashak, St. Louis, for appellant.
Evans & Dixon, William W. Evans, St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an action for damages by reason of personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff when the car in which she was riding and the car which the defendant was driving collided. The trial was to a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant. From the judgment entered in accordance with the verdict the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.
We are confronted with a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 83.05, Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, V.A.M.R. That rule sets out what a brief shall contain, and states it with great clarity. Section (a)(2) of Rule 8o.05 provides that the brief shall contain 'a fair and concise statement of the facts without argument;'. Further elaborating on the same requirement, Section (c) of the Rule provides:
After a jurisdictional statement the appellant's brief continues as follows:
'Statement of Facts.
The foregoing is the complete 'Statement of Facts'. It is quite obvious that it states none of the facts as required by the rule. It is not aided by a statement of the testimony of each witness which follows it. Merely narrating the testimony of each witness without first making a fair and concise statement of the facts is not a compliance with Rule 83.05. Repple v. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Mo.Sup., 289 S.W.2d 109. While the brief purports to set forth the testimony of each witness, most of this is a rather haphazard selection of questions and answers, much of which is not relevant to any issue raised.
Section (e) of Rule 83.05 provides that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weathers v. Falstaff Brewing Corp.
...for a dismissal of the appeal. Ambrose v. M.F.A. Co-Operative Ass'n of St. Elizabeth, supra; Jacobs v. Stone, supra; Tidwell v. Gulledge, Mo.App., 349 S.W.2d 404. We are cognizant of the fact that such a dismissal is a drastic action, and because of its effect on the appealing litigant and ......