{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"timothy-g-vogel","displayName":"Timothy G. Vogel","totalCases":2},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83856:2021-06-29","opinionId":"d19338da-a602-580c-945e-13ef6d7d6e56","slug":"timothy-g-vogel-v-robert-s-steffen-d83856","caseName":"Timothy G. Vogel\nvs. \nRobert S. Steffen","caseNumber":"WD83856","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-06-29","year":2021,"display_summary":"Robert Steffen appealed pro se from a circuit court judgment that found against him on claims of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. The appellate court dismissed Steffen's appeal. The dismissal was based on Steffen's failure to comply with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements, specifically regarding the statement of facts, factual assertions with record references, and stating the applicable standard of review. Additionally, Steffen failed to provide a transcript of the proceedings below, which prevented any meaningful review of his claims.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178219","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-g-vogel-v-robert-s-steffen-d83856","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: contracts"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: civil-procedure","topic: appellate-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83861:2021-03-23","opinionId":"381c4f3c-feb9-524f-a1e5-7c641bedc53e","slug":"timothy-g-vogel-v-gregory-schoenberg-d83861","caseName":"Timothy G. Vogel\nvs. \nGregory Schoenberg","caseNumber":"WD83861","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Gregory Schoenberg appealed the denial of his Rule 74.05(d) motion to set aside a default judgment, which had been entered against him for a violation of the Missouri Securities Act. He argued the trial court abused its discretion by finding he failed to show good cause for not responding to the petition and that the default judgment lacked sufficient evidence for liability. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that Schoenberg's reliance on a third party was a reckless choice, not mere negligence, and that Rule 74.05(a) does not permit a challenge to liability in a default judgment. The court also denied Vogel's motion for attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175556","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-g-vogel-v-gregory-schoenberg-d83861","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: civil-procedure","topic: appellate-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"}]}