Webb v. City of Dexter

Missouri Court of Appeals

Webb v. City of Dexter

538 S.W.2d 594, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2102

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 1976

DocketNo. 10184

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 538 S.W.2d 594 (Webb v. City of Dexter) 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

Webb v. City of Dexter, 538 S.W.2d 594, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2102 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff has lodged this appeal from the trial court’s order sustaining the defendants’ motions to dismiss her multiple-count petition in which she sought to have three Dexter, Missouri, ordinances declared invalid and to enjoin the defendants from enforcement thereof.

Plaintiff’s principal point in her brief is that the trial court erred in dismissing her petition because it “stated a cause of action for which relief could be granted, which is the only issue to be determined on a Motion to Dismiss.”

Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., requires a point relied on in an appellate brief to state briefly and concisely “wherein and why” the ruling of the trial court is claimed to be erroneous, with citations of authorities.

Plaintiff’s point wholly fails to advise us “wherein and why” she deems the ruling of the lower court to be erroneous. We are not required to con the pleadings or the argument portion of an appellate brief in a time-consuming effort to ascertain the “wherein and why” — Rule 84.04(d) casts this duty on appellant. Repeated warning flags have been hoisted that Rule 84.04 means what it says and compliance therewith is absolutely necessary in this era of an ever-increasing number of appeals coming to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

We decline to do in this appeal what we have done in the past, namely, give lip service to the Rule and proceed to ignore the violation and labor to dispose of the case on its merits.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

All concur.

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

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff has lodged this appeal from the trial court’s order sustaining the defendants’ motions to dismiss her multiple-count petition in which she sought to have three Dexter, Missouri, ordinances declared invalid and to enjoin the defendants from enforcement thereof.

Plaintiff’s principal point in her brief is that the trial court erred in dismissing her petition because it “stated a cause of action for which relief could be granted, which is the only issue to be determined on a Motion to Dismiss.”

Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., requires a point relied on in an appellate brief to state briefly and concisely “wherein and why” the ruling of the trial court is claimed to be erroneous, with citations of authorities.

Plaintiff’s point wholly fails to advise us “wherein and why” she deems the ruling of the lower court to be erroneous. We are not required to con the pleadings or the argument portion of an appellate brief in a time-consuming effort to ascertain the “wherein and why” — Rule 84.04(d) casts this duty on appellant. Repeated warning flags have been hoisted that Rule 84.04 means what it says and compliance therewith is absolutely necessary in this era of an ever-increasing number of appeals coming to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

We decline to do in this appeal what we have done in the past, namely, give lip service to the Rule and proceed to ignore the violation and labor to dispose of the case on its merits.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 S.W.2d 594, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-city-of-dexter-moctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack