Tenants motion in Missouri

2015This is because, Property Owners assert, without citation to any relevant legal authority, “[t]he price for allowing permissive interlocutory appeals [i]s giving up an appeal as a matter of right at the conclusion of the case.” Property Owners misconstrue the scope of Rule 84.035. “‘The right to appeal is purely statutory and, where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right exists.’” Coca-Cola Co., 249 S.W.3d at 859 (quoting Riverside–Quindaro Bend Levee Dist. v. Intercont'l Eng'g Mfg., 121 S.W.3d 531, 532 (Mo. banc 2003), and citing Rule 81.01).

2015This is because, Property Owners assert, without citation to any relevant legal authority, “[t]he price for allowing permissive interlocutory appeals [i]s giving up an appeal as a matter of right at the conclusion of the case.” Property Owners misconstrue the scope of Rule 84.035. “ ‘The right to appeal is purely statutory and, where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right exists.’ ” Coca-Cola Co., 249 S.W.3d at 859 (quoting Riverside —Quindaro Bend Levee Dist. v. Intercont’l Eng’g Mfg., 121 S.W.3d 531, 532 (Mo. banc 2003), and citing Rule 81.01).

2024Standard of Review We review the decision in this court-tried case under the standard set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

2019Co., 556 S.W.3d 80, 87 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018), transfer denied (Sept. 25, 2018) (In reviewing the grant of summary judgment to employer on employee’s claim of work-related injury, the appellate court refused to consider portions of employee’s medical records attached to a motion for summary judgment where the employee/non-movant had not relied on those portions of the medical records in opposing the grant of summary judgment and had admitted in his summary judgment response that the medical records did not link his injury to his work.).16 Consequently, Street does not aid Tenants’ claim.

2000Hiers v. Lemley, 834 S.W.2d 729, 731-2 (Mo. banc 1992); Blue Cross, supra, 800 S.W.2d at 75 ; Williams, supra, 565 S.W.2d at 662 .

2000Bearing on the decision of the effect of the August order granting the new trial in favor of the Tenants are the following factors: (1) Tenants’ motion for new trial, and particularly the ground that the judgment was contrary to the law is “worthless and state[s] no legal basis for a new trial.” Dixon v. Bi-State Development Agency, 636 S.W.2d 696, 697-8 (Mo.App.1982) (citing McCarthy v. Halloran 435 S.W.2d 339, 340 (Mo.1968)); (2) Under Rule 78.03, the August order granting a new trial, which did not specify of record the grounds on which it was being granted, created a presumption under Rule

2000Bearing on the decision of the effect of the August order granting the new trial in favor of the Tenants are the following factors: (1) Tenants’ motion for new trial, and particularly the ground that the judgment was contrary to the law is “worthless and state[s] no legal basis for a new trial.” Dixon v. Bi-State Development Agency, 636 S.W.2d 696, 697-8 (Mo.App.1982) (citing McCarthy v. Halloran 435 S.W.2d 339, 340 (Mo.1968)); (2) Under Rule 78.03, the August order granting a new trial, which did not specify of record the grounds on which it was being granted, created a presumption under Rule

2000McCarthy, 435 S.W.2d at 340 .

1994Landlord acknowledges that waste is defined as “the failure of a tenant to exercise ordinary care in the use of the leased premises or property that causes material and permanent injury thereto over and above ordinary wear and tear.” Brown v. Midwest Petroleum Co., 828 S.W.2d 686, 687 (Mo.App.1992).