From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Moody

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division Three
Nov 14, 1977
558 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. 38431.

October 18, 1977. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied November 14, 1977.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, ARTHUR LITZ, J.

Melba I. Parente, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Steven G. Schumaier, Carter, Brinker, Doyen Kovacs, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.


This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing Counts II and III of plaintiff-appellant's petition and striking paragraphs 11 of Count I and 5 of Count II and III of plaintiff-appellant's petition. By a separate Order, the order sustaining defendant-respondent's Motion to Dismiss and Strike was made a final order for the purpose of appeal. This appeal followed.

A "Statement and Stipulation of the Record" was filed by the parties in lieu of the customary transcript of the record consisting of certified copies of the petition, the Summons and Return on Service of Summons, defendant-respondent's Answer, Motion to Dismiss and to Strike, Notice of Hearing, Court memoranda of filing of same, that said Motions were argued and submitted, of the trial court's ruling on said Motions, of designations of rulings on said Motions as a final order of appeal, Jurisdictional Statement, and Notice of Appeal to this court.

Plaintiff-appellant's brief in this court is in violation of Rule 84.04 in the following respects:

1) plaintiff-appellant has failed to submit an indexed and paginated transcript as required by Rule 81.14(d), and

2) plaintiff-appellant has failed to furnish a statement of facts which complies with the requirements of Rule 84.04(c). The statement of facts contained in her brief is nothing more than a recitation of the procedural history of the case and a statement that the paragraphs ordered stricken from the petition contained plaintiff's claim for damages for "emotional distress."

3) Furthermore, plaintiff-appellant's brief contains no page references to the transcript as required by Rule 84.04(h).

For these reasons, by authority of Rule 84.08, plaintiff-appellant's appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with rules 81.14(d) and 84.04(c) and 84.04(h).

All judges concur.


Summaries of

Martin v. Moody

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division Three
Nov 14, 1977
558 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Martin v. Moody

Case Details

Full title:ANNABELLE MARTIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VINCENT MOODY…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division Three

Date published: Nov 14, 1977

Citations

558 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

Nitcher v. Brown

In similar circumstances, Missouri courts have dismissed appeals for failure to comply with the briefing…

Franklin v. Robards

No effort was made by appellants to present a fair and concise statement of facts in accordance with Rule…