Legal Opinion

Goedecke v. Bi-State Development Agency of Missouri-Illinois

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 17, 1967No. 32304PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CLEMENS, Commissioner.

Defendant Bi-State Development Agency of Missouri-Ulinois has moved to dismiss this appeal, mainly because the statement of facts in plaintiffs’ brief violates Civil Rule 83.05(c), V.A.M.R. That rule requires a concise, narrative statement of the facts relevant to questions presented for determination; it forbids recitation of formal matters. Instead, in 29 numbered paragraphs, plaintiffs’ statement summarizes the pleadings, opening statements, voir-dire examination, testimony of each witness, objections, motions, instructions given and refused, arguments, verdict and…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Devine v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1942
  2. Stokes v. Wabash Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1946
  3. Devoto v. St. Louis Public Service Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1951
  4. Stoutimore v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1936
  5. Hiltner v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1956

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Denny v. MathieuSupreme Court of Missouri · 1970
  2. Burtrum v. U-Haul Co. of Southern MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Kuenzle v. M-K Bus LinesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Liggett v. TorregrossaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. D.J., by and through his next friend, R.J. v. First Student, Inc., and Tomika L. RichardsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API