with Rule 84.04(d).” Landers v. Huffman, 914 S.W.2d 394, 396[5] (Mo.App.1996). A point that violates Rule 84.04(d) preserves nothing for appellate review. Id. at 396[6]. Even so, we may exercise our discretion to review under the plain error standard if the contentions can be understood from the argument section of the brief. Id. In this case, we reviewed two of Meekers’ Point I claims of trial court error ex gratia. Because we do not understand Meekers’ contentions about the trial court’s overruling of their alternative “Motion For Exclusion From Trial” as a separate incident of error, we will not exercise our discretion to review under the plain error standard. Point I denied. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. PARRISH, P.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur. 1 . pp.1964) (<HOLDING>); In the Interest of A.H., 963 S.W.2d at 378[4]
holding that where the plaintiffs copyright infringement claim was without a reasonable legal basis an award of attorneys fees to the defendants was a proper exercise of judicial discretion holding that the court must consider the extent of control exercised by the defendant over the third partys means of infringement holding that the objective prong for willful infringement is generally not met where an accused infringer relies on a reasonable defense to a charge of infringement holding aggrieved means suffering from an infringement or denial of legal rights holding that contributory trademark infringement requires some predicate act of infringement