Callier v. Callier

793 S.W.2d 164, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 978, 1990 WL 89561
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 26, 1990·No. No. 57001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendants appeal from a summary judgment for plaintiff on his petition for dissolution of defendant Missouri corporation. We dismiss.

Defendants’ sole point on appeal follows:

The trial court erred in granting [plaintiff’s] motion to dismiss [defendants’] counter claim, in striking portions of [defendants’] pleadings and in granting summary judgment on behalf of [plaintiff].

The point fails to state wherein and why the court’s rulings are erroneous, a fatal violation of Rule 84.04(d). See, e.g., Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 684-87 (Mo. banc 1978). Defendants have also failed to set out a fair and concise statement of the facts without argument in their brief, a violation of Rule 84.04(c). See, Porter’s Ready-Built, Inc. v. Plummer, 685 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Mo.App.1985). It is appropriate for this Court to refuse to review an appeal based on a defective brief. See, McKee v. Wilmarth, 771 S.W.2d 955, 956-957 (Mo.App.1989).

Defendants’ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Callier v. Callier, 793 S.W.2d 164, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 978, 1990 WL 89561 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

793 S.W.2d 164 (Callier v. Callier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Myers v. Myers
845 S.W.2d 621 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992)