512.160. Questions considered on appeal — disposition by court — damages — executions. — 1. Apart from questions of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter and questions as to the sufficiency of pleadings to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or a legal defense to a claim, no allegations of error shall be considered in any civil appeal except such as have been presented to or expressly decided by the trial court.
2. No appellate court shall reverse any judgment, unless it believes that error was committed by the trial court against the appellant, and materially affecting the merits of the action.
3. The appellate court shall examine the transcript on appeal and, subject to the provision of subsections 1 and 2, award a new trial or partial new trial, reverse or affirm the judgment or order of the trial court, or give such judgment as such court ought to have given, as to the appellate court shall seem agreeable to law. Unless justice requires otherwise the court shall dispose finally of the case on appeal and no new trial shall be ordered as to issues in which no error appears.
4. Upon the affirmance of any judgment or order, or upon the dismissal of any case, the appellate court may award to the respondent such damages not exceeding ten percent of the amount of the judgment complained of as may be just, and when such judgment shall be affirmed for part of the sum of which judgment was rendered by the trial court, such part of said judgment shall bear lawful interest from the date of the rendition of the original judgment in the trial court.
5. The appellate court, upon the determination of any case on appeal, may award execution to carry the same into effect, or may remand the case, with the decision, to the trial court from whence the cause came, and such determination shall be carried into execution by such trial court.
Notes of Decisions
Missouri All. for Retired Americans v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 277 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. 2009).
· cites it 4× “The trial court's summary judgment based on lack of justiciability is reversed with respect to count VI, and this Court enters declaratory judgment pursuant to section 512.160(3). It therefore is adjudged, decreed and declared that workers excluded from the act by the narrower…”
Investors Title Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 18 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 9× “1984), two cases in which appealing judgment creditors were allowed to obtain postjudgment interest under Section 512.160(4) RSMo. (1994). 3 We decline to do so.”
Furlong Companies v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. 2006).
· cites it 2× “banc 1992) (citing section 512.160(2) and Rule 84.13(b)). Merely asserting error without making a showing of how that error was somehow prejudicial is not sufficient for reversal.”
Grippe v. Momtazee, 696 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The only issues that are inherent and remain in every appeal are questions concerning subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the pleadings to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or a legal defense to a claim.”
Vosburg v. Smith, 272 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954).
· cites it 6× “” Section 512.160(2), RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. In considering this question we are handicapped by the fact that the transcript does not present the arguments of counsel in their entirety but contains only the brief statements to which objections were made.”
Archdekin v. Archdekin, 562 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2018).
· cites it 2× “In its final division of property, no additional property was awarded to Wife; rather, she was awarded the same property as in the interlocutory judgments - property valued at only a few thousand dollars.”
Scullin Steel Co. v. Paccar, Inc., 748 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 12× “IV Section 512.160(4), RSMo, provides that when a judgment is affirmed "for part of the sum of which judgment was rendered by the trial court, such part of said judgment shall bear lawful interest from the date of the rendition of the original judgment in the trial court".”
Johnson v. BFI Waste Sys. of North Am., Inc., 162 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “The “such judgment” referred to in Section 512.160 is clearly the trial court judgment which is affirmed by the appellate *130 court.”
Brawner v. Brawner, 327 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. 1959).
· cites it 4× “In his Divisional Reply and Supplemental Brief, the plaintiff presented for the first time his contention that the common-law rule of marital immunity violates § 14, Art.”
Douglas v. Whitledge, 302 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957).
· cites it 5× “] and that the question before us is whether the refusal of instruction D-7 constituted reversible error, not whether the giving of this instruction would have been such error"a distinction which is of importance in determining the measure of exactitude which the reviewing…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 512.160(1) — 22 cases
Brawner v. Brawner, 327 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. 1959).
“In his Divisional Reply and Supplemental Brief, the plaintiff presented for the first time his contention that the common-law rule of marital immunity violates § 14, Art.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 512.160(2) — 45 cases
Furlong Companies v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. 2006).
“banc 1992) (citing section 512.160(2) and Rule 84.13(b)). Merely asserting error without making a showing of how that error was somehow prejudicial is not sufficient for reversal.”
Vosburg v. Smith, 272 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954).
“” Section 512.160(2), RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. In considering this question we are handicapped by the fact that the transcript does not present the arguments of counsel in their entirety but contains only the brief statements to which objections were made.”
Douglas v. Whitledge, 302 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957).
“] and that the question before us is whether the refusal of instruction D-7 constituted reversible error, not whether the giving of this instruction would have been such error"a distinction which is of importance in determining the measure of exactitude which the reviewing…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 512.160(3) — 38 cases
Missouri All. for Retired Americans v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations, 277 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. 2009).
“The trial court's summary judgment based on lack of justiciability is reversed with respect to count VI, and this Court enters declaratory judgment pursuant to section 512.160(3). It therefore is adjudged, decreed and declared that workers excluded from the act by the narrower…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 512.160(4) — 7 cases
Investors Title Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 18 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
“1984), two cases in which appealing judgment creditors were allowed to obtain postjudgment interest under Section 512.160(4) RSMo. (1994). 3 We decline to do so.”
Scullin Steel Co. v. Paccar, Inc., 748 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
“IV Section 512.160(4), RSMo, provides that when a judgment is affirmed "for part of the sum of which judgment was rendered by the trial court, such part of said judgment shall bear lawful interest from the date of the rendition of the original judgment in the trial court".”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.