Schieve v. Meyer

3 Citing cases

  1. Seitz v. Advanced Welding & Mfg.

    No. SD38421 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2025)

    Rule 78.07(b) (emphasis added). The reasons for this requirement are to eliminate error, to give the trial court an opportunity to rule intelligently, and to avoid the delay, expense, and hardship of an appeal and retrial. Schieve v. Meyer, 628 S.W.3d 726, 732 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). This purpose is frustrated if the claimed error receives its first review in the appellate court.

  2. Copper v. Ringen

    671 S.W.3d 409 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "We will affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Id. (quoting Schieve v. Meyer , 628 S.W.3d 726, 731 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) ). Analysis

  3. Wright v. Nash

    652 S.W.3d 246 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    "Our review of a court-tried case is governed by Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)." Schieve v. Meyer , 628 S.W.3d 726, 731 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting In Their Representative Capacity as Trs. for Indian Springs Owners Ass'n v. Greeves , 277 S.W.3d 793, 797 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) ). "We will affirm the trial court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law."