Standley v. Haile

Missouri Court of Appeals

Standley v. Haile

782 S.W.2d 150, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 1990 WL 421

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 5, 1990

DocketNo. 16276

StatusPublished

This text of 782 S.W.2d 150 (Standley v. Haile) 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

Standley v. Haile, 782 S.W.2d 150, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 1990 WL 421 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

GREENE, Judge.

The Court, after considering appellant’s brief, finds that it is written in violation of Rule 84.04(d) V.A.M.R., in that none of the briefs three points relied on set forth the rule of law that the trial court should have applied in the case and did not set forth the evidentiary basis on which appellant contends the asserted rule is applicable, as is required by Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978). Under the circumstances, appellant’s brief preserves nothing for appellate review. .J. C. Jones & Co. v. Doughty, 760 S.W.2d 150, 152-153 (Mo.App.1988). Gratuitous review under the plain error rule, as enunciated in Rule 84.13(c), which states that plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered on appeal, though not raised or preserved, when the court finds that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom, is not justified, as the record shows that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, and is not based on any erroneous declaration or application of law.

A written opinion would have no prece-dential value and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.-16(b).

CROW, P.J., and PREWITT, J., concur.

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

GREENE, Judge.

The Court, after considering appellant’s brief, finds that it is written in violation of Rule 84.04(d) V.A.M.R., in that none of the briefs three points relied on set forth the rule of law that the trial court should have applied in the case and did not set forth the evidentiary basis on which appellant contends the asserted rule is applicable, as is required by Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978). Under the circumstances, appellant’s brief preserves nothing for appellate review. .J. C. Jones & Co. v. Doughty, 760 S.W.2d 150, 152-153 (Mo.App.1988). Gratuitous review under the plain error rule, as enunciated in Rule 84.13(c), which states that plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered on appeal, though not raised or preserved, when the court finds that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom, is not justified, as the record shows that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, and is not based on any erroneous declaration or application of law.

A written opinion would have no prece-dential value and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.-16(b).

CROW, P.J., and PREWITT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 S.W.2d 150, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 10, 1990 WL 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standley-v-haile-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack