Kansas City v. Garza

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kansas City v. Garza

493 S.W.2d 659, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1061

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1973

DocketNo. KCD 26138

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 493 S.W.2d 659 (Kansas City v. Garza) 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

Kansas City v. Garza, 493 S.W.2d 659, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1061 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

WASSERSTROM, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment finding her guilty of a violation of the City’s traffic ordinances. Her brief sets out the following points: (1) A police officer who failed to appear and testify in municipal court may not be permitted to testify in circuit court on appeal; (2) An information based upon a Missouri Uniform Traffic Ticket may not be amended without leave of court; and (3) An information based upon a Missouri Uniform Traffic Ticket may not be amended without notice to the defendant.

These purported points are purely abstract statements of law and present nothing for review. Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R.; Boyd v. Boyd, 459 S.W.2d 8, l. c. 12 (Mo.App.1970); Epperson v. Nolan, 452 S.W.2d 263, l. c. 267-268 (Mo.App.1970); Scarato v. Hayward, 446 S.W.2d 135, l. c. 136-137 (Mo.App.1969).

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All concur.

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

WASSERSTROM, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment finding her guilty of a violation of the City’s traffic ordinances. Her brief sets out the following points: (1) A police officer who failed to appear and testify in municipal court may not be permitted to testify in circuit court on appeal; (2) An information based upon a Missouri Uniform Traffic Ticket may not be amended without leave of court; and (3) An information based upon a Missouri Uniform Traffic Ticket may not be amended without notice to the defendant.

These purported points are purely abstract statements of law and present nothing for review. Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R.; Boyd v. Boyd, 459 S.W.2d 8, l. c. 12 (Mo.App.1970); Epperson v. Nolan, 452 S.W.2d 263, l. c. 267-268 (Mo.App.1970); Scarato v. Hayward, 446 S.W.2d 135, l. c. 136-137 (Mo.App.1969).

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 S.W.2d 659, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kansas-city-v-garza-moctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack