Apac-Missouri, Inc. v. Boyer

2 Citing cases

  1. B.S.-S. v. Callahan

    604 S.W.3d 342 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)

    "When an exhibit is not deposited with this Court, ‘the intendment and content of the exhibit [will be] taken as favorable to the trial court's ruling and as unfavorable to the appellant.’ " APAC-Missouri, Inc. v. Boyer , 420 S.W.3d 651, 657-58 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (citation omitted). In his motion for drug testing, Father alleged that Mother had agreed to submit herself for drug testing without a formal order from the court in July 2018.

  2. Bramer v. Abston

    553 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 14 times
    Considering a preserved claim that an inapplicable Rule 74.05 motion could be reviewed under Rule 74.06

    Indeed, our presumption is the opposite. APAC-Missouri, Inc. v. Boyer , 420 S.W.3d 651, 657-58 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013). In this Court’s April 26, 2016 Order, we extensively discussed the necessity of Abston’s production of the transcripts, and the seriousness with which this Court viewed her failure to produce these despite numerous opportunities to do so. Now, upon Abston’s third failure to provide the transcripts to this Court, Abston simply has no excuse—there is no way for this Court to overlook Abston’s serious deviation from the rules and procedures governing appellate review.