claim of reversible error in Missouri

2019Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires each point to “(A) Identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) State concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) Explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.”1 “Rule 84.04 is not merely an exhortation from a judicial catechism nor is it a suggestion of legal etiquette.” Shockley v. State, SC96633, 2019 WL 1614593 , at *25 n.9 (Mo. banc Apr. 16, 2019) (citing Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978)).

2014First, Wife’s two points *646 relied on do not comply with Rule 84.04(d). 4 Rule 84.04(d)(1) provides that an appellant’s brief must present points relied on that: “(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.”' The purpose of Rule 84.04(d) is to provide notice to the opponent and the court of the precise matters to be “contended with, answered, and reso

2005The point shall be in substantially the following form: ‘The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].’ “ ‘Thus, the rule requires that each point relied on: (1) identify the trial court’s ruling or action that the appellant is challenging on appeal; (2) state the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (3) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those

2004“Thus, the rule requires that each point relied on: (1) identify the trial court’s ruling or action that the appellant is challenging on appeal; (2) state the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (3) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Wilson v. Carnahan, 25 S.W.3d 664, 666 (Mo.App.

2005The point shall be in substantially the following form: ‘The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].’ “ ‘Thus, the rule requires that each point relied on: (1) identify the trial court’s ruling or action that the appellant is challenging on appeal; (2) state the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (3) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those

2005The point shall be in substantially the following form: ‘The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].’ “ ‘Thus, the rule requires that each point relied on: (1) identify the trial court’s ruling or action that the appellant is challenging on appeal; (2) state the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (3) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those

2023Rule 84.04(d)(1) provides the form to which points relied on must adhere: The point shall be in substantially the following form: “The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].” “A deficient point relied on requires the respondent and appellate court to search the remainder of the brief to discern the appellant’s assertion and, beyond causing a waste of resources, risks the appellant’s argument be

2021Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires an appellant to “(A) [i]dentify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) [s]tate concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) [e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Rule 84.04(d)(1) also requires that “[t]he point shall be in substantially the following form: ‘The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the le

2023Rule 84.04(d)(1), therefore, requires the point relied on to: (1) identify the challenged trial court ruling or action; (2) state concisely the legal reasons 3 for the claim of reversible error; and (3) "[e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error." A properly drafted point relied on is essential to this Court's review because it notifies "the opposing party of the precise matters which must be contended" while informing this Court of the specific "issues presented for review." Wilkerson v. Prelutsky, 943 S.W.2d 643, 6

2023A. Rule 84.04(d)(1): Points Relied On Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires the points relied on to: “(A) Identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) State concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) Explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” This Rule also states that points relied on must substantially emulate the following form: “The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversibl

2003“Rule 84.04(d) ‘sets forth a form for a point relied on that satisfies the [rule’s] requirements.’” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Wright, 990 S.W.2d 703, 708 (Mo.App.1999)).

2003“Rule 84.04(d) ‘sets forth a form for a point relied on that satisfies the [rule’s] requirements.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Wright, 990 S.W.2d 703, 708 (Mo.App.1999)).

2017Lombardo v. Lombardo, 120 S.W.3d 232, 247 (Mo.App.

2017Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A)-(C); Lombardo v. Lombardo , 120 S.W.3d 232 , 247 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003).

2023Where, as here, an appellate court is asked to review the decision of a trial court, points “shall (A) [i]dentify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) [s]tate concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) [e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Hiner v. Hiner, 573 S.W.3d 732, 735 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Rule 84.04(d)(1)).

2023A point relied on “shall (A) [i]dentify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) [s]tate concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) [e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Hiner v. Hiner, 573 S.W.3d 732, 735 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Rule 84.04(d)(1)).

2019While each identifies the “ruling or action” by the trial court being challenged on appeal (the “ruling” ingredient), see Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A), each fails to identify the Murphy ground applicable to its respective claim (the “legal reason why” ingredient), see Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B), and they all fail to “[e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error” (the “context” ingredient), Rule 84.04(d)(1)(C).

2003Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). 2 Father’s first point on appeal asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in finding that [Aaron’s] testimony was credible and [] Father [sic] was not because the testimony with regard to the merits of the case are reconcilable.” Father’s first point fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d), 3 which provides that a point relied on in an appellant’s brief shall “(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) explain in summary fas

2020No Legal Reasons Asserted for any Claimed Reversible Errors Husband also claims that “[Wife’s] points relied on are not in the proper form[.]” Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A)–(C) mandates that a point on appeal shall, “[i]dentify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges”; “[s]tate concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error”; and “[e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” (Emphasis added.) The purpose of Rule 84.04(d)(1) “is to give notice to the opposing party as to the prec

2015See In re Marriage of Weinshenker, 177 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Mo.App.E.D.2005).

2011Coleman v. Gilyard, 969 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Mo.App.1998).

2011Coleman v. Gilyard, 969 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Mo.App.1998).

2013Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B) requires an appellant’s point to state “the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error[,]” and subsection C requires the point to “explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” See also Houston v. Weisman, 197 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Mo.App.E.D.2006).

2009The rule requires that each point relied on “(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and (C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Rule 84.04(d)(1); see also Houston v. Weisman, 197 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Mo.App.

2016Lemay v. Hardin, 108 S.W.3d 705, 709 (Mo.App.2003).

2006See Lemay, 108 S.W.3d at 708-09 .

2011Section 558.031 just because I exercised another due process i.e. extradition treaty.” MDC does not suggest that Howard’s brief should be struck pursuant to Rule 84.04, but we believe it is worth noting that while not a model of appellate briefing, it accomplished the following requisite tasks: "(1) identif[ied] the ruling or action of the trial court that is being challenged on appeal; (2) statefd] the legal reason or reasons for the claim of reversible error; and (3) explain[ed] in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, the legal reason or reasons support the claim of reversible er

2011Rule 84.04(d) " 'requires that a proper point relied on must: (1) identify the ruling or action of the trial court that is being challenged on appeal; (2) state the legal reason or reasons for the claim of reversible error; and (3) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, the legal reason or reasons support the claim of reversible error.' ” White v. White, 293 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Mo.App.

2008Steltenpohl’s eight points relied on violate Rule 84.04(d)(l)’s requirement that they “identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; ... state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and ... explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Her points do not state why the legal reasons support her claims of reversible error. “‘A point relied on written contrary to the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04(d) ... preserves nothing for appellate review.’ ” Foster v.

2006Selberg’s points relied on violate Rule 84.04(d)(l)’s requirement that they “identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; ... state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant’s claim of reversible error; and ... explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” 1 The points do not state why the legal reasons support his claims of reversible error. “‘A point relied on written contrary to the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04(d) ... preserves nothing for appellate review.’ ” Foster v. Village

2007Crawford County Concerned Citizens v. Mo. Dep’t of Natural Res., 51 S.W.3d 904, 908 (Mo.App.2001).

2004Rule 84.04(d)(4); Crawford County Concerned Citizens v. Mo. Dep’t of Natural Res., 51 S.W.3d 904, 908 (Mo.App.

2003Simmons v. Lawrence County Jail, 948 S.W.2d 242, 244 (Mo.App.

2002“The requirements of Rule 84.04(d) are mandatory.” Simmons v. Lawrence County Jail, 948 S.W.2d 242, 244 (Mo.App. 1997).

2022“The purpose of the points relied on is to give notice to the opposing party of the precise matters which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for review.” Wallace, 546 S.W.3d at 627 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021The point shall be in substantially the following form: “The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].” “The purpose of the points relied on is ‘to give notice to the opposing party of the precise matters which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for review.’” Hiner v. Hiner, 573 S.W.3d 732, 735-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Wallace, 546 S.W.3d at 627 ).

2025See Southside Ventures, LLC v. La Crosse Lumber Co., 574 S.W.3d 771 , 783 n.4 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) ("[A] substantial- evidence challenge . . . and an against-the-weight-of-the-evidence challenge . . . are distinct claims.") (quoting Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 , 199 n.11 (Mo. banc 2014)).

2018Ivie, 439 S.W.3d at 199 n.11; In re J.A.R., 426 S.W.3d at 630 n.10.

2019Rule 84.04(d)(1)(C).4 “Deficient points relied on force the appellate court to search the argument portion of the brief or the record itself to determine and clarify the appellant's assertions, thereby wasting judicial resources, and, worse yet, creating the danger that the appellate court will interpret the appellant's contention differently than the appellant intended or his opponent understood.” Wallace v. Frazier, 546 S.W.3d 624 , 627–28 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting Treaster v. Betts, 297 S.W.3d 94, 95 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009)).

2016Husband’s “amended” points do not “state concisely the legal reasons for [his] claim of reversible error,” nor do they “explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” Rule 84.04(d)(1)(B) and (C). 3 *270 The-purpose of the points relied on is “to give notice to the opposing party of the precise matters which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for review.” Treaster v. Betts , 297 S.W.3d 94, 95 (Mo.App.2009).

2004State v. Nunley, 103 S.W.3d 374, 376 (Mo.App.

2003Nunley, 103 S.W.3d at 376 .

2023“A point relied on which does not state ‘wherein and why’ the trial court or administrative agency erred does not comply with Rule 84.04(d) and preserves nothing for appellate review.” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Storey v. State, 175 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Mo. banc 2005)). 3 Although appellate courts have discretion to review non-compliant points ex gratia where the argument is readily understandable, this discretion must be exercised cautiously “because each time we review a noncompliant brief ex gratia, we send an implicit message that substandard briefing is acceptable.

2022The Rule provides a specific template of the form to which points must substantially adhere: The point shall be in substantially the following form: “The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].” Rule 84.04(d)(1). “‘A point relied on which does not state “wherein and why” the trial court . . . erred does not comply with Rule 84.04(d) and preserves nothing for appellate review.’” Lexow, 643 S.W.3d

2020Supreme Court Rule 84.04(d)(1)(C) 27 (emphasis added); see also Herd v. Herd, 537 S.W.3d 414, 418 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (holding that, where an appellant’s point relied on fails to identify the specific trial testimony or exhibits supporting his or her claim, nothing is preserved for review).

2019See Rule 84.04(d)(1)(C) (requiring an appellant to “[e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error”); Herd v. Herd, 537 S.W.3d 414, 417 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018).

2007“The requirement that the point relied on clearly state the contention on appeal is not simply a judicial word game or a matter of hypertechnicality on the part of appellate courts.” In re Marriage of Shumpert, 144 S.W.3d at 320 (quoting Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978)).

2007This Rule specifies that the points shall be in substantially the following form: “The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].” Rule 84.04(d)(1). “ ‘The requirement that the point relied on clearly state the contention on appeal is not simply a judicial word game or a matter of hypertechnicality on the part of appellate courts.’ ” In re Marriage of Shumpert, 144 S.W.3d at 320 (quoting Thummel v.

2020Rule 84.04(d)(1) further provides that “[t]he point shall be in substantially the following form: ‘The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].’” Id. (brackets in original).

2020Rule 84.04(d)(1) further provides that “[t]he point shall be in substantially the following form: ‘The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error].’” Id. (brackets in original).

2025Id.

2019Kuenz v. Walker, 244 S.W.3d 191, 193-94 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007) (citing Boyd vy.

2020See State v. Davidson, 242 S.W.3d 409, 415 (Mo. App. 2007) (“Where, as here, there is no reference to any specific criminal act committed either by the defendant or by any gang to which the defendant might belong, admission of such a vague reference . . . does not support a claim of reversible error.”).

2014While we reach a different conclusion as to legal relevance under the facts here, ultimately the Davidson court found, as we do, that the vague reference to gang membership did not "support a claim of reversible error.” Id. 3 .

2020“Under Rule 84.04, it is not proper for the appellate court to speculate as to the point being raised by the appellant and the supporting legal justifications and circumstances.” Fesenmeyer v. Land Bank of Kansas City, 453 S.W.3d 271, 274 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014).

2018"Under Rule 84.04, it is not proper for the appellate court to speculate as to the point being raised by the appellant and the supporting legal justifications and circumstances." Fesenmeyer v. Land Bank of Kansas City , 453 S.W.3d 271 , 274 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal quotes and citation omitted).

2019Day v. State , 208 S.W.3d 294 , 295 (Mo.App.S.D. 2006).

2019Day v. State, 208 S.W.3d 294, 295 (Mo.App.S.D. 2006).