TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Webb v. City of Dexter

Ruth WEBB, d/b/a the Flamingo Lounge and the Dexter Pool Hall v. The CITY OF DEXTER, Defendants-Respondents

Webb v. City of Dexter, 538 S.W.2d 594 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 14, 1976
Docket
No. 10184
Judges
Billings, Flanigan, Hogan
Citations
538 S.W.2d 5941976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2102

Opinion of the Court — Billings

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

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff has lodged this appeal from the trial court’s order sustaining the defendants’ motions to dismiss her multiple-count petition in which she sought to have three Dexter, Missouri, ordinances declared invalid and to enjoin the defendants from enforcement thereof.

Plaintiff’s principal point in her brief is that the trial court erred in dismissing her petition because it “stated a cause of action for which relief could be granted, which is the only issue to be determined on a Motion to Dismiss.”

Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., requires a point relied on in an appellate brief to state briefly and concisely “wherein and why” the ruling of the trial court is claimed to be erroneous, with citations of authorities.

Plaintiff’s point wholly fails to advise us “wherein and why” she deems the ruling of the lower court to be erroneous. We are not required to con the pleadings or the argument portion of an appellate brief in a time-consuming effort to ascertain the “wherein and why” — Rule 84.04(d) casts this duty on appellant. Repeated warning flags have been hoisted that Rule 84.04 means what it says and compliance therewith is absolutely necessary in this era of an ever-increasing number of appeals coming to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

We decline to do in this appeal what we have done in the past, namely, give lip service to the Rule and proceed to ignore the violation and labor to dispose of the case on its merits.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1976: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Middleton v. Meramec Mining Co.545 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)

Most recent

  1. Middleton v. Meramec Mining Co.545 S.W.2d 679 (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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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