Stokes v. Kelly
Russell T. STOKES, Jr. v. Joseph J. KELLY, Jr., and Edward Fischer
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
CLEMENS, Presiding Judge.
In an action for unpaid architectural fees plaintiff had a verdict and judgment. Defendants appeal, but their brief fails to comply with rules of appellate procedure.
Rule 84.04(d) requires appellants’ briefs to state the points relied on, pointing out “what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous.” Disre *563 garding that simple rule, these appellants’ points relied on are these:
“I. The court erred in allowing plaintiff to testify that the homes were built from plaintiff’s plans.
“II. The court erred in not directing a verdict for defendants because plaintiff failed to prove the essential elements of his case.”
Appellants’ brief obviously fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d). In accord with Rule 84.08, we dismiss the appeal, for the reasons stated by this court in Kellin v. ACF Industries, 528 S.W.2d 533 (Mo.App.1975) and Donnell v. Vigus Quarries, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 223 (Mo.App.1973).
DOWD and STEWART, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.