Bratton v. Mitchell

12 Citing cases

  1. State v. Reardon

    41 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. 2001)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that when some event occurs prior to the resolution of a controversy, which extinguishes the controversy, the issue is moot

    In deciding whether a case is moot, an appellate court is allowed to consider matters outside the record. Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Mo.App. 1998); Wilson, 955 S.W.2d at 812. In this case, the appellant filed his petition in quo warranto, citing Rule 98, seeking the respondent's removal from the office of Clay County prosecuting attorney.

  2. Greene v. Greene

    685 S.W.3d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    "Mootness indicates that a controversy existed, which was properly before the court for resolution, but was extinguished by the occurrence of some event, rendering the controversy academic." Margolis v. Steinberg, 242 S.W.3d 394, 399 (Mo. App. 2007) (quoting Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo. App. 1998)). "In deciding whether a case is moot, an appellate court is allowed to consider matters outside the record."

  3. Croney v. Missouri Red Quarries, Inc.

    No. SD30974 (Mo. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2011)

    Before we address Employer's points, we must address the Division's motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal. SeeBratton v.Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) ("It is necessary to take up the motion to dismiss the appeal before considering the points raised on appeal"). "A case is rendered moot and should be dismissed when an event transpires causing a decision by this Court to be unnecessary or granting its relief impossible."

  4. Croney v. Missouri Red Quarries, Inc.

    353 S.W.3d 713 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    Before we address Employer's points, we must address the Division's motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal. See Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (“It is necessary to take up the motion to dismiss the appeal before considering the points raised on appeal”). “A case is rendered moot and should be dismissed when an event transpires causing a decision by this Court to be unnecessary or granting its relief impossible.”

  5. Margolis v. Steinberg

    242 S.W.3d 394 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 10 times

    Accordingly, the Stipulation has expired and the terms of the parenting plan control. Therefore, no internal conflict exists and Margolis' argument appears to be moot. Appellate courts generally do not consider issues that are moot. Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Mo.App.W.D.1998). "Mootness indicates that a controversy existed, which was properly before the court for resolution, but was extinguished by the occurrence of some event, rendering the controversy academic."

  6. Powell v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections

    152 S.W.3d 363 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 11 times

    The cases that Appellant attempts to rely upon in arguing to the contrary are not on point and do not support the statements attributed to them. Appellant's reliance on Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo.App.W.D. 1998) is misplaced. In Bratton, this Court expressly declined to address whether the defendant's placement in a drug treatment facility during a 120-day call back period under § 559.115.2 qualified as a "remand" under the version of § 558.019.2 in effect at the time.

  7. Olson v. Olson

    91 S.W.3d 164 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that a question is moot when it seeks a judgment upon some matter that would lack any practical effect on any then existing controversy and that moot issues are not subject to consideration by the appellate court

    Issues that are moot are not subject to consideration by this court. Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Mo.App. 1998). This rule applies to cases in which child visitation is at issue.

  8. Care and Treatment of Burgess v. State

    72 S.W.3d 180 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 11 times

    Except for issues of public importance or when a case becomes moot after submission and argument (exceptions not present here), issues that are moot are not subject to consideration on appeal. Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236[5,7] (Mo.App. 1998). Considering the factual context revealed by this record, no reason appears to compel joinder of Nixon, Wilson, and Barton, in their representative capacities, as parties to this litigation.

  9. Harris v. Parman

    54 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 13 times
    In Harris v. Parman, 54 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001), the Southern District held that it was error for a circuit court to allow a parent a credit on Line 6(c) for the cost of health insurance, when the other parent had been ordered by the court to provide health insurance for the parties' children.

    "Issues that are moot are not subject to consideration." Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236[5] (Mo.App. 1998). This rule attends in domestic relations cases, Schulte v.Schulte, 949 S.W.2d 225, 226-27 (Mo.App. 1997), including those in which child visitation is an issue.

  10. Rasse v. the City of Marshall

    18 S.W.3d 486 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 14 times

    The trial court declared that the City was prohibited from collecting the 1996 installment and that the first installment was the 1997 installment. Because this claim involves no controversy, it presents nothing for appellate review . Bratton v.Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235-36 (Mo.App.W.D. 1998). We, therefore, decline review of the timing claim in Point I(B).