Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC

29 Citing cases

  1. Basham v. Kensinger (In re Marvin)

    682 S.W.3d 788 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 4 times
    In Matter of Marvin, 682 S.W.3d at 798 (quoting Murphree v. Lakeshore Ests., LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021)).

    Instead, her arguments consist simply of conclusory factual statements, which "entirely fail β€˜to develop an argument by demonstrating how the principles of law and the facts of the present case interact to support [her] assertion that the [probate] court committed reversible error.’ " Murphree v. Lakeshore Ests., LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (quoting Burgan v. Newman, 618 S.W.3d 712, 715 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021)). The arguments that do cite legal authority fare no better.

  2. Townsend v. Div. of Emp't Sec.

    654 S.W.3d 424 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    For us to review an appeal, the appellant must comply with the minimum requirements for appellate briefing set forth in Rule 84.04. Freeland v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 647 S.W.3d 22, 24 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Murphree v. Lakeshore Est., LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 623–24 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ). An appellant's failure to adhere to the briefing standards outlined in Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appeal and is grounds for dismissal.

  3. T.G. v. D.W.H.

    648 S.W.3d 42 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 16 times

    Rule 84.04 sets forth the requirements for appellate briefing. Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC , 636 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). Compliance with Rule 84.04 is mandatory.

  4. Schultz v. Bank of Am. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp.

    645 S.W.3d 689 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 7 times
    Dismissing appellant's first point relied on

    Preliminarily, we are charged with sua sponte determining whether Point One complies with the Rules of Appellate Procedure set forth in Rule 84.04. "Rule 84.04 sets forth the minimum requirements for appellate briefing." Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 623 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (citing Bennett v. Taylor, 615 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) ). "Compliance with those rules is necessary β€˜to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by inferring facts and arguments that the appellant failed to assert.’ " Estate of Allen, 615 S.W.3d 851, 853 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (internal quotation omitted).

  5. Hicks v. Northland-Smithville

    655 S.W.3d 641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 8 times

    "[F]ail[ure] to comply with this requirement, leav[es] this Court to speculate as to the pertinent authority." Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC , 636 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021).

  6. Maxwell v. Div. of Emp't Sec.

    671 S.W.3d 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 6 times

    In short, her arguments "entirely fail β€˜to develop an argument by demonstrating how the principles of law and the facts of the present case interact to support [her] assertion that the [Commission] committed reversible error.’ " Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC , 636 S.W.3d 622, 625 (Mo.App. 2021) (quoting Burgan v. Newman , 618 S.W.3d 712, 715 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ). We cannot complete Maxwell's arguments for her.

  7. Hutcheson v. State

    656 S.W.3d 37 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 9 times

    Appellants must comply with the mandatory minimum requirements for appellate briefing set forth in Rule 84.04 in order for us to review their appeal. T.G. v. D.W.H., 648 S.W.3d 42, 46 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022) (citing Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 623–24 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ). "Rule 84.04 is not merely designed to enforce hyper-technical procedures or to burden the parties on appeal." Id.

  8. Young v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

    647 S.W.3d 73 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 19 times

    Rather, they ensure that the parties and the court are informed of the precise matters in contention and the appropriate scope of review. Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC , 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). This information allows this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues and ensures the proper functioning of the adversary nature of our judicial system.

  9. Jefferson v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

    648 S.W.3d 50 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 8 times

    Rather, they ensure that the parties and the court are informed of the precise matters in contention and the appropriate scope of review. Murphree v. Lakeshore Estates, LLC , 636 S.W.3d 622, 624 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021). This information allows this Court to conduct a meaningful review of the issues and ensures the proper functioning of the adversary nature of our judicial system.

  10. Kruse v. Karlen

    692 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    [1, 2] Compliance with Rule" 84.04 is mandatory. Murphree v. Lakeshore Ests., LLC, 636 S.W.3d 622, 623–24 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (internal citation omitted). Failure to substantially adhere to Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review and requires dismissal of the appeal.