St. Louis Children's Hospital, Respondent, v. Gail Brown and Ted Brown, a/k/a Theodis Brown, Appellants.
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: St. Louis Children's Hospital, Respondent, v. Gail Brown and Ted Brown, a/k/a Theodis Brown, Appellants. Case Number: 72738 Handdown Date: 02/17/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Barbara Ann Crancer Counsel for Appellant: Party acting pro se Counsel for Respondent: Nicholas Glen Higgins Opinion Summary: Appellants, Gail Brown and Ted Brown ("defendants"), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered in favor of respondent, St. Louis Children's Hospital ("Hospital"), on its petition on account. DISMISSED. Division One Holds : Defendants' appellate brief does not comply with Rule 84.04, and therefore the appeal is dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J., concur. Opinion: Opinion modified by Court's own motion on February 24, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. Appellants, Gail Brown and Ted Brown ("defendants"), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered in favor of respondent, St. Louis Children's Hospital ("Hospital"), on its petition on account. We dismiss. From Hospital's petition, it appears Hospital rendered medical services to defendants from October 29,
1994, to May 31, 1995, for which defendants owe Hospital $457.10. Defendants did not pay this charge, despite Hospital's demand. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Hospital, and defendants appeal. Rule 84.04 governs appellate briefs and their contents. A review of defendants' brief shows it to be woefully inadequate under our rules.(FN1) Accordingly, defendants' appeal is dismissed. Footnotes: FN1. The statement of facts and argument sections appear to discuss an issue of administrative law involving the Moline Fire Protection District, despite this being an appeal from a judgment entered on a petition on account. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.