Brumfield v. Division of Employment Sec., 24311.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Marilyn Green, Cynthia Quetsch, Jefferson City, for respondent |
| Citation | 54 S.W.3d 741 |
| Parties | Paula BRUMFIELD, Claimant-Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 24311.,24311. |
| Decision Date | 28 September 2001 |
54 S.W.3d 741
Paula BRUMFIELD, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent-Respondent.
No. 24311.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.
September 28, 2001.
Paula Brumfield, pro se.
Marilyn Green, Cynthia Quetsch, Jefferson City, for respondent.
SHRUM, Presiding Judge.
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):
"STATEMENT OF FACTS
"I, Paula Brumfield was laid off work from Diversified Plastics Inc. on February 8, 2001 and was called by to work on March 1, 2001. I reported to the Division of Employment Security and was told I needed to make two (2) job searches. I made my 2 job searches each week. I went too many places like restaurants, convenient stores, etc. I was looking for any type of work on any day Sunday thru Saturday. I was offered and took a job where I work weekends and holiday's now.
"The Division of Employment Security said I was not available for work fore the reason I attended Ozarks Technical Community College 8 hours a week on Tuesday and Thursday from 8:00 A.M. to 11:50 A.M.
"The Division of Employment Security is looking at a work week as Monday
thru Friday, and actually there are many jobs where you have to work weekends and holidays.
ARGUMENTS
"I found a few sections of the Labor and Industrial Relations for Employment Security that I feel applies to my case. They are
288.030
288.040
288.055
CONCLUSION
"I feel I was able and available for work at the beginning of the calendar week meaning Sunday thru Saturday. So that is why I should get my back unemployment.
Sincerely,
signature
Paula Brumfield"
Appellant is fully entitled to proceed pro se. Libberton v. Phillips, 995 S.W.2d 66, 67 (Mo.App.1999). In doing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb, SD 29866.
...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 imp......
-
Moran v. Mason, 28054.
...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 lack ......
-
Satterlee v. Cnty. of Douglas, SD 31028.
...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 an atto......
-
Call v. Branson Enterprises, L.L.C., 25150.
...Page 543 "`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 co......