Stokes v. Kelly

537 S.W.2d 562, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2094
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 30, 1976·No. No. 36747·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

537 S.W.2d 562 (Stokes v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mayfield v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
585 S.W.2d 163 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)
Corning Bank v. Hager
560 S.W.2d 892 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
Glasnapp v. State Banking Board
545 S.W.2d 382 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1976)