concurring.
I concur only for the reason that, as noted in the principal opinion, this Court is constitutionally bound to follow Weaver.
ON POST-OPINION MOTION AFTER READOPTION OF ORIGINAL OPINION BY THIS COURT FOLLOWING RETRANSFER BY SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
PER CURIAM.
After this court readopted its original opinion following retransfer of this case by the Supreme Court of Missouri, Insurer filed a motion praying this court for a rehearing or, in the alternative, to again transfer this case to the Supreme Court. We henceforth refer to that motion as “the pending motion.”
The pending motion avers this court, among other omissions, “has overlooked the facts testified to by William, Frances and *886Sara in depositions, and part of the record in the Supplement to Legal File.” The pending motion then recites fifteen facts allegedly established by those depositions. As shall become evident infra, Insurer is endeavoring to place evidence before this court that was never presented to the trial court.
The instant case was tried April 30, 1996. At the outset of the trial, Insurer’s lawyer told the trial court that Sara “has filed a lawsuit against ... Hugh Rogers, claiming bodily injury.”6 Insurer’s lawyer asked the trial court “to take judicial notice of that' file.”
The trial court replied: “The Court will take judicial notice of that case file.”
As reported in this court’s readopted opinion, there was evidence before the trial court that Insurer’s lawyer took depositions March 28, 1995, from Sara, William and Frances. However, it is indisputably clear from the record that no portion of any deposition was shown to the trial court and no deposition was offered in evidence. This court’s original opinion contained a footnote pointing out that the depositions were not presented to the trial court and had not been filed with this court.
In a post-opinion motion following this court’s original opinion, Insurer attempted to place information from the depositions before this court. Insurer’s motion stated, inter alia: “With the Court’s indulgence, the facts testified to by William, Frances and Sara in depositions, although not part of the record, are as follows: ... (emphasis supplied).” The motion then recited the same fifteen facts set forth in the pending motion. However, Insurer did not tender the depositions to this court for inclusion in the record.
After this court transferred this case to the Supreme Court, Insurer moved the Supreme Court for leave to file a “Supplement to Legal File” containing the depositions of Sara, William and Frances. Insurer’s motion alleged the trial court took judicial notice of the case file in “New Madrid County Case Number: CV194-234CC.”7 That is the lawsuit filed by Sara — by her next friend, Frances — against Hugh “by and through his Defendant ad Litem” on April 29, 1994. The title and case number on the depositions identified in the first sentence of this paragraph show they were taken in that lawsuit.
Sara objected to Insurer’s motion to file the Supplement to Legal File, pointing out that according to the docket sheet in case number CV194-234CC, the three depositions were not filed in the trial court until June 24, 1997, almost fourteen months after the instant case was tried. Consequently, protested Sara, the depositions were not part of the record in case CV194-234CC at the time the trial court in the instant case took judicial notice of the “ease file” in case CV194-234CC. Because of that, asserted Sara, the depositions were never considered by the trial court in the instant case.
Despite Sara’s objection, the Supreme Court granted Insurer’s motion to file the Supplement to Legal File. That ruling is noted in the second paragraph of this court’s readopted opinion. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not change the fact that the depositions were never before the trial court.
Appellate review of a trial court’s judgment is limited to the evidence properly before that court. Estate of Russell, 932 S.W.2d 822, 827[6] (Mo.App. S.D.1996); F.D.I.C. v. Warmann, 859 S.W.2d 948, 952[3] (Mo.App. E.D.1993). The record indisputably confirms that the depositions were not part of the “case file” in case CV194-234CC when the trial court in the instant case took “judicial notice” of the CV194-234CC file. Furthermore, no deposition was received in evidence, and neither party cites anyplace where the record shows any deposition was presented to or considered by the trial court.
Inasmuch as the depositions were never before the trial court, the depositions are ineligible for consideration by this court. Cf National Indemnity Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 513 S.W.2d 461, 468[3] n. 8 (Mo.1974). That being so, we need not speculate *887whether the trial court could have properly found from the depositions that Insurer was prejudiced by Hugh’s breach of the notice clause.
The pending motion is denied.
. Apparently, Insurer's lawyer was referring to case number CV194-234CC in the Circuit Court of New Madrid County.
. Footnote 6, supra.