Callier v. Callier

Missouri Court of Appeals

Callier v. Callier

793 S.W.2d 164, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 978, 1990 WL 89561

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1990

DocketNo. 57001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 793 S.W.2d 164 (Callier v. Callier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

793 S.W.2d 164, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 978, 1990 WL 89561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callier-v-callier-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack