Gant v. Lou Fusz Motor Co., ED 83347.
| Decision Date | 21 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 83347.,ED 83347. |
| Citation | 153 S.W.3d 866 |
| Parties | Odessa GANT, Appellant, v. LOU FUSZ MOTOR COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County; John E. Frerking, Judge.
Odessa Gant, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Thomas L. Sandifer, Clayton, MO, for respondent.
Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Odessa Gant appeals a judgment entered in favor of Lou Fusz Motor Co. ("Lou Fusz") on Ms. Gant's claim that Lou Fusz failed to repair her Pontiac van. Lou Fusz has filed a Motion to Dismiss Ms. Gant's appeal contending that she failed to comply with Rules 84.04 and 84.06 and Local Rule 365. Because we agree that Ms. Gant has failed to comply with the applicable rules, we dismiss.
Ms. Gant filed a pro se appeal from the trial court's judgment. Thereafter, Ms. Gant filed a pro se brief and an amended brief. Lou Fusz has not filed a brief in response.
It is well-settled that pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with Supreme Court Rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets out the requirements for appellate briefs. Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). Failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure constitutes grounds for dismissal of an appeal. Id. at 742-43.
Ms. Gant's brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04. The jurisdictional statement consists solely of an argumentative fact statement. The statement of facts is not fair and concise. The points relied on do not, among other things, identify the trial court ruling which appellant challenges, referring incomprehensibly to findings of the Director of Revenue. The argument section, which refers to the "dealership's conclusions of law, or its application of the law to the facts," fails to comply in any respect with Rule 84.04. In short, Ms. Gant's brief preserves nothing for review. Davis, 93 S.W.3d at 742-43.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Mgmt., Inc.
...fails to comply with Rule 84.04, preserves nothing for our review, and is inadequate to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Gant, 153 S.W.3d at 866;Davis, 93 S.W.3d at 743. We should not be expected to decide this case on the basis of inadequate briefing or to undertake additional resear......
-
Ward v. United Engineering Co.
...are held to the same standards as are attorneys and must comply with the Supreme Court's rules of procedure. Gant v. Lou Fusz Motor Co., 153 S.W.3d 866, 866 (Mo.App. E.D.2004); Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 742 (Mo. App. E.D.2002). Judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to......
-
Schaefer v. Altman
...are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with the Supreme Court Rules, including Rule 84.04. Gant v. Lou Fusz Motor Co., 153 S.W.3d 866, 866 (Mo.App. E.D.2004); Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 742 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). "While we understand the problem faced by pro se litig......
-
Bank v. American Family
...for dismissal. Id. Carlisle's brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04 and preserves nothing for our review. See Gant v. Lou Fusz Motor Co., 153 S.W.3d 866 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). We cannot be expected to decide this case based on inadequate briefing. Nor should we undertake additional research or......