Brumfield v. Division of Employment Sec.
| Decision Date | 28 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 24311.,24311. |
| Citation | 54 S.W.3d 741 |
| Parties | Paula BRUMFIELD, Claimant-Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Paula Brumfield, pro se.
Marilyn Green, Cynthia Quetsch, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Paula Brumfield ("Appellant") filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Missouri Division of Employment Security ("Division"). Division ruled Appellant was ineligible for benefits, and she appealed to the Appeals Tribunal. After an evidentiary hearing before the Appeals Tribunal, the decision of Division was affirmed. Thereon, Appellant filed a timely appeal with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("Commission"). Following Commission's review, it affirmed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. The instant appeal followed. This court dismisses the appeal.
Appellant appeals pro se. Commission has moved for dismissal of the appeal because Appellant failed to comply with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements.
We reproduce Appellant's "brief" in its entirety (except for the caption page):
ARGUMENTS
CONCLUSION
Appellant is fully entitled to proceed pro se. Libberton v. Phillips, 995 S.W.2d 66, 67 (Mo.App.1999). In doing so, however, she is bound "by the same rules of procedure as those admitted to practice law and is entitled to no indulgence she would not have received if represented by counsel." Johnson v. St. Mary's Health Center, 738 S.W.2d 534, 5351 (Mo.App.1987).
As is abundantly clear, Appellant's brief shows flagrant violations of every applicable provision of Rule 84.04.1 Appellant's brief fails to contain the following:
1. A detailed table of contents. Rule 84.04(a)(1).
2. A jurisdictional statement. Rule 84.04(a)(2) and (b).
3. An adequate statement of facts. Rule 84.04(a)(3) and (c).
4. Any points relied on. Rule 84.04(a)(4) and (d).
7. Specific page references to the legal file or transcript. Rule 84.04(i).
As demonstrated by the verbatim recital, it would indeed be a Herculean task to characterize Appellant's brief as anything but falling woefully short of any reasonable compliance with Rule 84.04. "A failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review." Burton v. Tucker, 937 S.W.2d 775, 7762 (Mo.App.1997). Allegations of error not properly briefed "shall not be considered in any civil appeal." Rule 84.13(a).
In Libberton, 995 S.W.2d 66, State ex rel. Div. of Child Support Enforcement v. Hinojos, 993 S.W.2d 581 (Mo.App.1999), and Burton, 937 S.W.2d 775, appeals were dismissed for similar Rule 84.04 violations. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
1 All rule references are to Supreme Court Rules (2001), unless otherwise indicated.
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb
...not have received if represented by counsel.'" Moran v. Mason, 236 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Mo. App.2007) (quoting Brumfield v. Div. of Empl. Sec., 54 S.W.3d 741, 742 (Mo.App. 2001)). "`This principal is not grounded in a lack of sympathy but rather it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial......
-
Moran v. Mason, 28054.
...to practice law and is entitled to no indulgence [he] would not have received if represented by counsel.'" Brumfield v. Div. of Empl. Sec., 54 S.W.3d 741, 742 (Mo.App.2001) (quoting Johnson v. St. Mary's Hlth. Ctr., 738 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Mo.App.1987)). "This principal is not grounded in a la......
-
Satterlee v. Cnty. of Douglas, SD 31028.
...nothing for appellate review.’ ” Call v. Branson Enterprises, L.L.C., 97 S.W.3d 541, 543 (Mo.App.2003) (quoting Brumfield v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 54 S.W.3d 741, 742 (Mo.App.2001)). While we are mindful that Appellant appears before this Court pro se, all parties, whether or not represented by......
-
Call v. Branson Enterprises, L.L.C., 25150.
...omitted)). "`A failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review.'" Brumfield v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 54 S.W.3d 741, 742 (Mo.App. 2001) (quoting Burton v. Tucker, 937 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Mo.App.1997)). "Allegations of error not properly briefed `shall not be ......