Case ID: sw2d_532/html/0045-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of the Driver’s License of Jerry Erle DURHAM, Petitioner-Appellant.
    No. 9854.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.
    Jan. 6, 1976.
    Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 22, 1976.
    Dee Wampler, Wampler & Wampler, Springfield, for petitioner-appellant.
    John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Clarence Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Director of Revenue.
    Before BILLINGS, C. J., and TITUS and FLANIGAN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04. The statement of facts, consisting of five sentences does not set forth “facts relevant to the questions presented for determination.” The points do not “state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous.” Appellant’s “abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the court is not a compliance with this rule.”

Appeal dismissed.

All concur.