State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)

Citation: State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
Parent Document: State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1992-11-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2431294/state-v-muegge/ ↗

Full Text

1,378 chars

vides: “[t]he statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Wilson’s statement of facts fails to contain a fair or concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions for determination. This section is devoid of any chronology of the events which led to the controversy between the parties. Moreover, it is devoid of any recitation regarding the procedural posture of the case. Instead, Wilson merely outlines the issues that he subsequently presents in his points relied on and argument portions of his brief. This violation of the Rules is not condoned. Furthermore, Rule 84.04(h) provides: “[a]ll statements of fact and argument shall have specific page references to the legal file or the transcript.” Wilson’s statement of fact fails to have even one reference to the legal file or the transcript. This violation is also not condoned. In its first point, Norfolk contends that these deficiencies should warrant dismissal of the appeal. Although we are inclined to agree, we have examined the records of the case with great care and expenditure of time and have decided to address Wilson’s claims of error. We assert, however, that this approach shall not stand as precedent authorizing violation of the Supreme Court rules relating to the content and structure of briefs.

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text