Demayo v. Lyons
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this cause, which motion was taken with the case. The ground of the motion is that appellants' statement does not comply with Rule 1.08 as to a fair and concise statement of the facts without argument, etc. The statement would not be commended as a model; few would so grade. Dismissal of an appeal is a drastic penalty and such penalty will not be applied unless fully warranted by the violations [437] complained of. See Neal v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 353 Mo. 779, 184 S.W.2d 441. We do not think that the appeal should be dismissed,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- State v. Parker Distilling Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- McDearmott v. SedgwickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Carlisle v. National Oil & Dev. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Van Tine v. HilandsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1904
- Moore v. CarterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hastings Associates, Inc. v. Local 369 Building Fund, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1997
- De Mayo v. LyonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- Fitzpatrick v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- Feinstein v. McGuireSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
- Mueller v. BurchfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.