version rule in Missouri

2019We are “confined to review the decision identified in the notice of appeal.” See In Interest of: B.P., 547 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quotations omitted) (similarly holding with respect to Rule 81.04(a), the corresponding rule governing appeals from a trial court); Powell v. City of Kansas City, 472 S.W.3d 219, 229 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (similarly holding as to a former version of the rule governing appeals from a trial court). 2 The notice of appeal filed by Appellant in this case only refers to the Commission’s August 22, 2018 decision denying her unemployment benefits.

2018Under Rule 81.04(a), a notice of appeal must specify "the judgment, decree, or order appealed from." See also Powell v. City of Kansas City , 472 S.W.3d 219 , 229 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (discussing the previous version of the rule number 81.08(a)).

2005Under the current version of this rule, “[w]here a reasonable doubt exists as to whether the conduct was intentionally designed or irresponsibly calculated to impede the work of courts, it should be resolved in favor of good faith.” Id. at 839 .

1997Under the current version of this rule, "[w]here reasonable doubt exists as to whether the conduct was intentionally designed or irresponsibly calculated to impede the work of courts, it should be resolved in favor of good faith." Id. at 839 [5].

2023Without findings and conclusions, the appellate court necessarily must “engage in de novo review, which is not permitted under Rule 24.035(k).” Jackson v. State, 366 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). 5 This version of the rule became effective November 4, 2021, five days before the judgment was entered in this case, and this was the version cited by Ross in his motion to amend the judgment under Rule 78.07(c).

2023Id. at 654-55 . 6 5 All references to Rule 27.01(b) are to the version of the rule effective from January 1, 1980 to June 30, 2022. 6 This Court previously stated a waiver must appear in the record with “unmistakable clarity.” See Baxter, 204 S.W.3d at 653 (quoting State v. Bibb, 702 S.W.2d 462, 466 (Mo. banc 1985)).

2023Significantly, the “unmistakable clarity” language that originated in Bibb was only used to emphasize the constitution and Rule 27.01(b) require the record to show the defendant’s assent to waiver. 702 S.W.2d at 465-66 .

2022(Emphasis added); see also State v. McCrary, 621 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Mo. banc 1981) (discussing a prior version of the rule and stating that the rule “permitted, but did not require, the joinder of offenses … in the same indictment or information when the offenses charged were based: (1) on the same act ; (2) on the same transaction; or (3) on a common scheme or plan”) (emphasis added).

2022Bergner, 568 S.W.3d at 550 (noting that it is the movant’s initial delivery to the DOC that triggers the 180-day period—even if just to complete the 120-day CODS program pursuant to § 559.036).

2021Mitchell v. State, 386 S.W.3d 198, 200 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012); Burgin v. State, 969 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998).

2021Mitchell v. State, 386 S.W.3d 198, 200 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012); Burgin v. State, 969 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998).

2019We are “confined to review the decision identified in the notice of appeal.” See In Interest of: B.P., 547 S.W.3d 785, 788 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quotations omitted) (similarly holding with respect to Rule 81.04(a), the corresponding rule governing appeals from a trial court); Powell v. City of Kansas City, 472 S.W.3d 219, 229 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (similarly holding as to a former version of the rule governing appeals from a trial court). 2 The notice of appeal filed by Appellant in this case only refers to the Commission’s August 22, 2018 decision denying her unemployment benefits.

2019Because Bergner was to be delivered to the DOC pursuant to the CODS commitment, and it is the movant’s /itial delivery to the DOC—even if just to complete a 120-day program pursuant to § 559.036—that triggers the 180- day period to file a Rule 24.035 motion under the applicable version of the rule, Miley v. State, 559 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Mo.App.E.D. 2018), the court should have informed Bergner that he was about to enter his 180-day window. 3 The Missouri Supreme Court recently amended Rule 24,035(b).

2013See also State v. King, 849 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Mo.App.E.D.1993) (applying the previous version of this rule); Dorris v. State, 743 S.W.2d 904, 906 (Mo.App.

2013See also State v. King, 849 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Mo.App.E.D.1993) (applying the previous version of this rule); Dorris v. State, 743 S.W.2d 904, 906 (Mo.App.

2007Peltzman v. Beachner, 813 S.W.2d 932, 933-34 (Mo.App.1991); Miller v. Agathenfor Christen, 804 S.W.2d 849, 850 (Mo.App.1991); Watson v. E.W.

2007Peltzman v. Beachner, 813 S.W.2d 932, 933-34 (Mo.App.1991); Miller v. Agathenfor Christen, 804 S.W.2d 849, 850 (Mo.App.1991); Watson v. E.W.

2005This court has noted that although the good cause element of Rule 74.05(d) evades “ ‘precise definition,’ ” it “ ‘obviously intends a remedial purpose and is applied with discretion to prevent a manifest injustice or to avoid a threatened one.’ ” In re Marriage of Williams, 847 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Mo.App.1993) (quoting B L C(K) v. W W C, 568 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Mo.App.1978)).

2005This court has noted that although the good cause element of Rule 74.05(d) evades “ ‘precise definition,’ ” it “ ‘obviously intends a remedial purpose and is applied with discretion to prevent a manifest injustice or to avoid a threatened one.’ ” In re Marriage of Williams, 847 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Mo.App.1993) (quoting B L C(K) v. W W C, 568 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Mo.App.1978)).

2002In Snider v. Snider, 570 S.W.2d 770, 774 (Mo.App.1978), this court compared this provision in the pre 1975 version of Rule 73.01 to the findings of fact provision in the current version of the rule.

2002See id. 3 .

2001Ass'n, 874 S.W.2d at 395 . [16] 874 S.W.2d 380 (Mo.App.W.D.1994). [17] RSMo 1986. [18] RSMo 1986. [19] Id. at 385-86 . [20] Id. at 386-87 (footnotes omitted). [21] We rejected the State's argument that the requirements were met when a fiscal note and affidavit were filed with the original version of the rule. [22] Missouri Hosp.

2001Ass'n, 874 S.W.2d at 395 . [16] 874 S.W.2d 380 (Mo.App.W.D.1994). [17] RSMo 1986. [18] RSMo 1986. [19] Id. at 385-86 . [20] Id. at 386-87 (footnotes omitted). [21] We rejected the State's argument that the requirements were met when a fiscal note and affidavit were filed with the original version of the rule. [22] Missouri Hosp.

2001Ass'n, 874 S.W.2d. at 389 . [23] Id. at 390-91 (footnotes and citations omitted). [24] RSMo 1986. [25] RSMo 1986. [26] Although the subsequent discussion in Part II of the Missouri Hospital Association opinion is technically obiter dicta, the Missouri Supreme Court expressly declined to overrule our "soundly reasoned" discussion on the issue of the Commission's authority under § 643.050 and § 643.055 and approved of our rationale in Corvera Abatement Technologies, Inc. v. Air Conservation Comm'n, 973 S.W.2d 851, 858-60 (Mo. banc 1998). [27] Missouri Hosp.

2000Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 685-86 (Mo. banc 1978).

2000Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 685-86 (Mo. banc 1978).

1999In Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 [1] (Mo. banc 1976), the Supreme Court of Missouri construed an earlier version of that rule to mean that the judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.