Case Name: RESEARCH HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, a corporation, Respondent, v. Kenneth CARTER and Lucille B. Carter and Edward L. Simmons, Appellants
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1977-06-27
Citations: 553 S.W.2d 509
Docket Number: No. KCD 28139
Parties: RESEARCH HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, a corporation, Respondent, v. Kenneth CARTER and Lucille B. Carter and Edward L. Simmons, Appellants.
Judges: Before SWOFFORD, P. J., PRITCHARD, C. J., and DIXON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 553
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
RESEARCH HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, a corporation, Respondent, v. Kenneth CARTER and Lucille B. Carter and Edward L. Simmons, Appellants.
No. KCD 28139.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.
June 27, 1977.
Edward L. Simmons, Independence, for appellants.
Thomas A. Schwindt, Kansas City (Ber-man, DeLeve, Kuchan & Chapman, Kansas City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SWOFFORD, P. J., PRITCHARD, C. J., and DIXON, J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of respondent for hospital and medical services rendered the Carters in the amount of $3,625.55, and from an order overruling a motion for summary judgment of appellant Edward L. Simmons.
Appellant's points relied on are these: "I. The court erred in sustaining respondent's motion for summary judgment" and "II. The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for summary judgment." These points utterly fail to comply with Rule 84.-04(d) that "The points relied on shall 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 (Italics added.) Furthermore, the statement of facts fails to inform this court of what transpired in the court below. Rule 84.04(c). The argument portion of the brief adds nothing which would be of aid in disposing of this case.
Admonitions have continually been given to the members of the bar concerning the mandatory requirements of briefing under Rule 84. See the numerous cases annotated following Rule 84.04, pocket part, V.A.M.R. Violations continue to occur, resulting in many cases being dismissed for failure to comply with the rules.
Respondent's motion to dismiss does not reach the deficiencies in appellant's brief. It is therefore overruled, but the appeal herein is dismissed on the court's own motion.