Section 523
- Citation
- Section 523
- 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/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (77)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- State v. Muegge, 842 S.W.2d 192 (1992)
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
- Section 523
Full Text
612 charsWilson’s seventh point is that since he did not use the property for “farming” as specified as the lease use, he acquired the property by adverse possession. Again, Wilson’s point is deficient in that it does not state wherein and why the trial court erred as required by Rule 84.04(d). It neither states the rule of law the court should have applied nor the evidentiary basis upon which the asserted rule is applicable. Moreover, Wilson did not present this issue to the trial court. Again, trial court error cannot be founded on an issue which was not put before the trial court to decide. Matter of Heisserer,