Evans v. Groves Iron Works

14 Citing cases

  1. In re Marriage of Lazarus v. Jacob

    597 S.W.3d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    In re Marriage of Smith , 283 S.W.3d 271, 273 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). See alsoEvans v. Groves Iron Works , 982 S.W.2d 760 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) :[F]aithful compliance with the rule also serves another salutary purpose.

  2. Hoer v. Small

    1 S.W.3d 569 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 15 times

    The function of the appellant's brief is to explain to the court why, despite the evidence seemingly favorable to the respondent, the law requires that appellant must prevail. Evans v. Groves Iron Works, 982 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo.App. 1998). In complying with the dictates of Rule 84.04(c) and the other requirements of Rule 84.04, counsel must necessarily evaluate the appeal in precisely the manner it will ultimately be evaluated by the reviewing court.

  3. Hendrix v. City of St. Louis

    636 S.W.3d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 24 times

    Indeed, it is often viewed as an admission that if the Court was familiar with all of the facts, [that party] would surely lose." Prather , 345 S.W.3d at 263 (quoting Evans v. Groves Iron Works , 982 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) ). Rule 84.04(d) governs the "Points Relied On" in an appellant's brief and gives appellants a simple template to follow when creating their points:

  4. Blanchard v. Blanchard (In re Marriage of Blanchard)

    613 S.W.3d 879 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    In re Marriage of Smith , 283 S.W.3d 271, 273 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). See alsoEvans v. Groves Iron Works , 982 S.W.2d 760 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) :[F]aithful compliance with the rule also serves another salutary purpose.

  5. Biggs v. Brinneman

    598 S.W.3d 697 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 9 times
    Cautioning that "[o]ur preference to resolve matters on the merits is not a license for non-compliance with Rule 84.04"

    Hoer v. Small , 1 S.W.3d 569, 571 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999).SeeEvans v. Groves Iron Works , 982 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) :[F]aithful compliance with the rule also serves another salutary purpose.

  6. R.S.M. v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs. (In re Interest of R.J.M.)

    571 S.W.3d 219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    In re Marriage of Smith , 283 S.W.3d 271, 273 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). See alsoEvans v. Groves Iron Works , 982 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) ("However, faithful compliance with the rule also serves another salutary purpose. It should assist appellant’s counsel in evaluating whether the appeal should be pursued at all.... If counsel will objectively prepare a statement reciting only those facts that tend to support [the decision below], it will often be obvious that the appellate court will have no choice but to affirm ... and that there is no point in pursuing the appeal further.").

  7. Bell v. Baldwin Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.

    No. SD35342 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018)

    Indeed, it is often viewed as an admission that if the Court was familiar with all of the facts, the appellant would surely lose.'" Id. (quoting Evans v. Groves Iron Works, 982 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998)). Appellants' statement of facts contains multiple facts that have nothing to do with Appellants' argument and then leaves out some of the most important facts in the case.

  8. Bell v. Baldwin Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.

    No. SD35342 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2018)

    Indeed, it is often viewed as an admission that if the Court was familiar with all of the facts, the appellant would surely lose.'" Id. (quoting Evans v. Groves Iron Works, 982 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998)). Appellants' statement of facts contains multiple facts that have nothing to do with Appellants' argument and then leaves out some of the most important facts in the case.

  9. Bell v. Baldwin Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc.

    561 S.W.3d 469 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 10 times
    Noting "[t]he policy behind Rule 84.04(d) is an appellant's brief should give notice to the respondent of the precise matters which must be contended with and answered"

    Indeed, it is often viewed as an admission that if the Court was familiar with all of the facts, the appellant would surely lose.’ " Id. (quoting Evans v. Groves Iron Works , 982 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) ). Appellants' statement of facts contains multiple facts that have nothing to do with Appellants' argument and then leaves out some of the most important facts in the case.

  10. Prather v. City of Carl Junction

    345 S.W.3d 261 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Stating " brief does not substantially comply with Rule 84.04(c) when it highlights facts that favor the appellant and omits facts supporting the judgment" and also acknowledging "side from violating Rule 84.04(c), failure to acknowledge adverse evidence is simply not good appellate advocacy" and "is often viewed as an admission that if the Court was familiar with all of the facts, the appellant would surely lose"

    Indeed, it is often viewed as an admission that if the Court was familiar with all of the facts, the appellant would surely lose." Evans v. Groves Iron Works, 982 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). "The function of the appellant's brief is to explain to the Court why, despite the evidence seemingly favorable to the respondent, the law requires that appellant must prevail.