Stokes v. Kelly

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stokes v. Kelly

537 S.W.2d 562, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2094

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 30, 1976

DocketNo. 36747

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 537 S.W.2d 562 (Stokes v. Kelly) 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

Stokes v. Kelly, 537 S.W.2d 562, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2094 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Presiding Judge.

In an action for unpaid architectural fees plaintiff had a verdict and judgment. Defendants appeal, but their brief fails to comply with rules of appellate procedure.

Rule 84.04(d) requires appellants’ briefs to state the points relied on, pointing out “what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous.” Disre[563]*563garding that simple rule, these appellants’ points relied on are these:

“I. The court erred in allowing plaintiff to testify that the homes were built from plaintiff’s plans.

“II. The court erred in not directing a verdict for defendants because plaintiff failed to prove the essential elements of his case.”

Appellants’ brief obviously fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d). In accord with Rule 84.08, we dismiss the appeal, for the reasons stated by this court in Kellin v. ACF Industries, 528 S.W.2d 533 (Mo.App.1975) and Donnell v. Vigus Quarries, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 223 (Mo.App.1973).

DOWD and STEWART, JJ., concur.

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