Graff v. Montileone

Irven GRAFF and Agnes Graff, his wife v. Michael MONTILEONE, Defendant-Respondent

Graff v. Montileone, 523 S.W.2d 131 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: April 29, 1975
Docket: No. 35963
Judges: Clemens, Kelly, Stewart
Citations: 523 S.W.2d 1311975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1660

Cited by 8

Opinion of the Court — Stewart

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

STEWART, Judge.

Ruth Graff died as the result of injuries suffered in an automobile accident which occurred somewhere in the 5900 block of Riverview Blvd. in the City of St. Louis. Plaintiffs, as Ruth’s parents, brought a wrongful death action. They have appealed from an adverse verdict and judgment.

We are once again met with major deficiencies in an appellant’s brief. Rule 84.-04(c) V.A.M.R., provides:

"The statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument. Such statement of facts may be followed by a resume of the testimony of each witness relevant to the points presented.”

Under that portion of plaintiff’s brief titled “Statement of Facts” we are advised of the date upon which the petition was filed, a summary of the petition and a summary of portions of the testimony of the eight witnesses who testified in the case. It has long been held that this is not in compliance with the rule. Triplett v. Wyatt, 360 S.W.2d 386 (Mo.App.1962); *132 Handshy v. Hasty, 444 S.W.2d 48 (Mo.App.1969); Bryan v. Bryan, 435 S.W.2d 745 (Mo.App.1968). Having read the transcript we also find that the summary of the testimony in this case cannot be said to meet the test of fairness.

The original brief filed in this case by appellant was stricken for failure to comply with Rule 84.04. The brief now before the court which was filed by leave still fails to satisfy the requirements of the rule. After years of warning “we must not only call on counsel to follow the rules on appeal we must demand it”. Donnell v. Vigus Quarries, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 223 (Mo.App.1972).

The appeal is dismissed.

CLEMENS, P. J., concurs. KELLY, J., not participating.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts8

Relies on it most ⓘ

In re Marriage of Colley984 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)
Vodicka v. Upjohn Co.869 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)
State v. White529 S.W.2d 22 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)
Moore v. Rollmo Corp.575 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
State v. Brown535 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)
Midwest Lumber Co. v. Sellers556 S.W.2d 509 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Most recent

In re Marriage of Colley984 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)
Vodicka v. Upjohn Co.869 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994)
Moore v. Rollmo Corp.575 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
City of St. Louis ex rel. Esmar v. Tru-Bounce, Inc.562 S.W.2d 158 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
Midwest Lumber Co. v. Sellers556 S.W.2d 509 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
Greater Missouri Builders v. Blattner555 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Donnell v. Vigus Quarries, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972)	28
	Handshy v. Hasty, 444 S.W.2d 48 (Mo. Ct. App. 1969)	9
	Triplett v. Wyatt, 360 S.W.2d 386 (Mo. Ct. App. 1962)	6
	Bryan v. Bryan, 435 S.W.2d 745 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968)	4

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list