TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Govero

STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, . v. Raymond L. GOVERO et ux.

State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Govero, 533 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 20, 1976
Docket
No. 36570
Judges
Clemens, Kelly, Stewart
Citations
533 S.W.2d 6391976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2001

Opinion of the Court — Clemens

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

CLEMENS, Presiding Judge.

Condemnation action. A jury gave defendant land owners a $7,500 verdict; they appeal from the ensuing judgment. In accordance with Rule 84.08 we dismiss the appeal for defendants-appellants’ failure to comply with Rules 84.13(a) and 84.04(d).

Defendants-appellants vaguely claim trial error concerning the propriety of testimony of adverse expert witnesses, jury argument and cross examination of a witness. In the trial court defendants failed to object to any of these alleged improprieties. Rule 84.13(a) precludes our review of such points when not initially presented to and expressly decided by the trial court.

We add that appellants’ brief sets out three abstract Points Relied On. Not one complies with Rule 84.04(d) which requires an appellant’s brief to state “what actions or rulings of the court are sought to *640 be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous.” Hence, the appellants’ phantom Points Relied On preserve nothing for our review.

In Donnell v. Vigus Quarries, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 223 [3] (Mo.App.1972), we pointed to the drastic increase in appellate case load and declared: “With such a burden we must not only call on counsel to follow the rules on appeal but must demand it. It is only with the conscientious and effective help of lawyers practicing in our court that the appellate process will continue to function.” Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Rule 84.08.

KELLY and STEWART, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1976: 11983: 11988: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moreland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.662 S.W.2d 556 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)
  2. Schisler v. Rotex Punch Co. Inc.746 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)
  3. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Nickerson539 S.W.2d 771 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)

Most recent

  1. Schisler v. Rotex Punch Co. Inc.746 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)
  2. Moreland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.662 S.W.2d 556 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)
  3. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Nickerson539 S.W.2d 771 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Donnell v. Vigus Quarries, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972) 28

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list