Wilmering v. Whelan Security Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilmering v. Whelan Security Co.

800 S.W.2d 806, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1843

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 26, 1990

DocketNo. 57947

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 800 S.W.2d 806 (Wilmering v. Whelan Security Co.) 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

Wilmering v. Whelan Security Co., 800 S.W.2d 806, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1843 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from trial court’s order sustaining defendants’ motions for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case in a suit for malicious prosecution. On appeal plaintiff claims the court erred in sustaining the motion because “PLAINTIFF MADE A SUBMISSIBLE CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED BY CHOOSING TO BELIEVE DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS OVER PLAINTIFF AND THUS INVADED THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY BY DECIDING FACTS AND NOT LAW.”

The record on appeal contains a partial transcript. It includes only arguments outside the presence of the jury on defendants’ motions for directed verdict. However, plaintiff has not provided us with the transcript of his evidence adduced at trial. In the absence of a record of the evidence, we cannot determine whether plaintiff made a submissible case. See Searcy v. Searcy, 658 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Mo.App.1983) (final disposition of a case on appeal pursuant to Rule 84.14 ‘presupposes a record and evidence upon which we can rule with confidence in the reasonableness, fairness, and accuracy of our final conclusion’). Because plaintiff has failed to provide us with the transcript of his evidence, we cannot determine whether the trial court erred as plaintiff alleges. Accordingly, this point on appeal is not properly before us. Rule 81.12. In Interest of W.S. and D.S., minors, 599 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Mo.App.1980); Brooks v. Dunson, 272 S.W.2d 305, 308 (Mo.App.1954).

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from trial court’s order sustaining defendants’ motions for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case in a suit for malicious prosecution. On appeal plaintiff claims the court erred in sustaining the motion because “PLAINTIFF MADE A SUBMISSIBLE CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED BY CHOOSING TO BELIEVE DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS OVER PLAINTIFF AND THUS INVADED THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY BY DECIDING FACTS AND NOT LAW.”

The record on appeal contains a partial transcript. It includes only arguments outside the presence of the jury on defendants’ motions for directed verdict. However, plaintiff has not provided us with the transcript of his evidence adduced at trial. In the absence of a record of the evidence, we cannot determine whether plaintiff made a submissible case. See Searcy v. Searcy, 658 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Mo.App.1983) (final disposition of a case on appeal pursuant to Rule 84.14 ‘presupposes a record and evidence upon which we can rule with confidence in the reasonableness, fairness, and accuracy of our final conclusion’). Because plaintiff has failed to provide us with the transcript of his evidence, we cannot determine whether the trial court erred as plaintiff alleges. Accordingly, this point on appeal is not properly before us. Rule 81.12. In Interest of W.S. and D.S., minors, 599 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Mo.App.1980); Brooks v. Dunson, 272 S.W.2d 305, 308 (Mo.App.1954).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

800 S.W.2d 806, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilmering-v-whelan-security-co-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack