Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alpert v. State

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 3, 2018No. SC 96024Published

1DissentZel M. Fischer, Chief Justice

DISSENTING OPINION

I concur with the analysis in Judge Wilson's dissent that the principal opinion erroneously declares a criminal statute constitutional even though the case is not ripe. I write separately because the principal opinion's error in deciding a case that is not ripe is compounded by the concession that Alpert's sole point relied on violates Rule 84.04(d). Because Alpert's sole point relied on violates Rule 84.04(d), it preserves nothing for appellate review and his appeal should be dismissed.

Rule 84.04 establishes mandatory briefing rules. Storey v. State , 175 S.W.3d 116, 126…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. Storey v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  3. In the Interest of: J.A.R., D.K.R., and A.E.R., Children Under Seventeen Years of Age, Greene County Juvenile Office v. D.G.R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2014
  4. Sun Aviation, Inc. v. L-3 Communications Avionics Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2017
  5. Joshua Peters, The Missouri Attorney General, Intervenor/Respondent v. Rachel M. JohnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 2016

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

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

Powered by the Exa API