Patrice Rhodes, Appellant, v. Dan Zhang, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Patrice Rhodes, Appellant, v. Dan Zhang, Respondent. Case Number: 75284 Handdown Date: 09/21/1999 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Nancy L. Schneider Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: Plaintiff Patrice Rhodes appeals from a judgment against defendant Dan Zhang. DISMISSED. Division Three holds: Rhodes failed to file a copy of the trial transcript. This court is therefore unable to review the evidence and, consequently, must dismiss the appeal. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Teitelman, P.J., Ahrens and Mooney, JJ., concur. Opinion: Plaintiff Patrice Rhodes ("appellant") appeals from a judgment of the St. Charles County Circuit Court against Defendant Dan Zhang ("respondent") in the amount of $388.90 plus costs. Because an improper record was filed, we must dismiss the appeal. No transcript or respondent's brief was filed. We therefore glean the facts from appellant's brief. Appellant purchased a computer from respondent for $489.90. A 90-day warranty was included as part of the purchase. After experiencing problems with the computer during the warranty period, appellant delivered the computer to respondent for servicing. Respondent demanded $20 for his services. When appellant refused to pay the $20, respondent refused to
return the computer or refund the purchase price. After bringing suit in Small Claims Court, appellant was awarded $515.62 in damages for both the purchase price of the computer and court costs. Pursuant to section 512.180 RSMo (Supp. 1998), respondent exercised his right to a trial de novo. A bench trial was conducted on the record, and the court awarded appellant $388.90 in damages plus court costs. Appellant filed this appeal. It is appellant's duty to provide a full and complete record on appeal. Brancato v. Wholesale Tool Co., Inc., 950 S.W.2d 551, 554 (Mo. App. 1997). The record on appeal shall contain all the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented to the appellate court for decision. Rule 81.12(a). Appellant asserts that the trial court erred because she is entitled to damages for the entire purchase price of the computer under a breach of an express warranty claim. However, she failed to file a transcript of the trial proceedings as required by Rule 81.12(a), and the record that she filed is devoid of any evidence whatsoever. Her claims of trial court error require a review of the evidentiary bases for the trial court's decision. Brancato, 950 S.W.2d at 555. Without a transcript, we cannot rule on the issues raised by appellant with any degree of confidence in the reasonableness, fairness, and accuracy of our final conclusion. Id. at 554. The appeal is dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.
K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943
Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389