green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
27.4 score
“downs ii”
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Sandbach v. KMS-KFC, LLC
Rule 84.19 Damages Respondents ask us to assess damages against Appellants for bringing a frivolous appeal under Rule 84.19. “‘An appeal is frivolous if it presents no justiciable question and is so readily recognizable as devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little prospect that it can ever succeed.’” Est. of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (quoting Dennis v. H & K Mach.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC v. Stephanie Rice
“Pursuant to Rule 84.19, if we determine that an appeal is frivolous, we may award monetary damages to the respondent as we deem just and proper.” Est. of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (citing Rule 84.19)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Molly Kruse v. Jonathan R. Karlen
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Est. of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (citing Rule 84.19).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Susan L. Brown (A/K/A Susan Brown-Thill), Trustee of the Eugene D. Brown Trusts Created by Trust Agreement Dated February 27, 1989 v. Richard L. Brown
We award damages under Rule 84.19 “with great caution” and do so only where such damages will serve “(1) to prevent congestion of the appellate court dockets with meritless cases which, by their presence, contribute to delaying resolution of meritorious cases and (2) to compensate respondents for the expenses they incur in the course of defending these meritless appeals.” Estate of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adam Dutton v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company
It is black-letter law that we will not consider arguments not raised in the trial court to support reversal of a summary judgment. 2 It is also black-letter law that we will not construct arguments for 2 See, e.g., Est. of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 733 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007); Citibrook II, LLC v. Morgan’s Foods of Mo., Inc., 239 S.W.3d 631, 635 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007). 4 an appellant which the appellant has not explicitly made. 3 Yet the majority now goes a step further: not only does it reverse based on an argument never presented to the trial court, and never argued here; it reverses base…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
School District of Kansas City v. Missouri Board of Fund Commissioners
“Generally, the denial of a summary judgment is not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable.” Estate of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Mo.App.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Major Saver Holdings, Inc. v. Education Funding Group, LLC
“An appeal is frivolous if it presents no justiciable question and is so readily recognizable as devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little prospect that it can ever succeed.” Rutter v. Bugg (In re Estate of Downs), 242 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Mo.App.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thiemann v. Columbia Public School District
“Generally, the denial of a summary judgment is not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable.” Estate of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Mo.App.W.D.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co.
“Generally, the denial of a summary judgment is not a final order and, therefore, is not appealable.” Estate of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Mo.App.
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Laura Downs v. Bugg
See Estate of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 731 (Mo. App. W.D.2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sauvain v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co.
“However, the denial of a motion for summary judgment may be reviewable when, as in this case, the merits of the motion for summary judgment are intertwined with the propriety of an ap-pealable order granting summary judgment to another party.” Id. (quotation marks omitted); see also Estate of Downs v. Bugg, 242 S.W.3d 729, 732 (Mo.App.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles R. SANDERS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent
WD 66863.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Oct 9, 2007.
Laura G. Martin, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Thomas H. Newton, P.J., Paul M. Spinden, and Ronald R. Holliger.
Published
Citer courts: Missouri Court of Appeals (1)
ORDER
PER CURIAM.Mr. Charles R. Sanders appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing under Rule 29.15.
For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).