Hicks v. Division of Employment Security
| Decision Date | 26 April 2001 |
| Citation | 41 S.W.3d 638 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) Brenda Hicks, Appellant v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent. 23821 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission
Counsel for Appellant: Pro Se
Counsel for Respondent: Ronald J. Miller
Opinion Summary: None
Brenda Hicks ("Appellant") appeals from a final order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri denying her claim for unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security ("Respondent") filed a motion to strike Appellant's brief for failure to comply with the Missouri Supreme Court Rules. Respondent's motion is granted.
Rule 84.041 requires an appellant's brief to have the following: (1) a detailed table of contents with page references and a table of cases and other authorities; (2) a concise statement concerning the appellate court's jurisdiction; (3) a fair and concise statement of the facts; (4) a Point Relied On that identifies the ruling challenged, sets forth concisely the legal reasons for the claim of error, and explains why the reasons support a finding of error; (5) argument containing, in part, the standard of review; and (6) a short conclusion. Rule 84.04 (a)-(e). All statements of fact and argument shall have specific page references to the legal file or transcript. Rule 84.04(i). Appellant did not comply with any of these rules.
Appellant's brief consists of two single-spaced typed pages of written material setting forth Appellant's view of the facts surrounding the ending of her employment. No table of contents is included. No jurisdictional statement is made. The facts given are only those favoring Appellant's position. No references to the legal file or transcript are given anywhere in Appellant's brief. No Point Relied On is included. It is difficult to glean any argument out of Appellant's brief. No conclusion is included. Appellant's brief violates every part of Rule 84.04.
A brief that does not comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review. Libberton v. Phillips, 995 S.W.2d 66, 67 (Mo.App. S.D. 1999). Claims of error that are not properly briefed "shall not be considered in any civil appeal." Rule 84.13(a).
We are mindful that Appellant is appealing as a pro se litigant, as she is entitled to do. Doing so, she is still bound by the same rules of procedure as are attorneys. Libberton, 995 S.W.2d at 67. As further explained in Sutton v. Goldenberg, 862 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pattie v. French Quarter Resorts
...in order to ensure fairness and impartiality." State v. Douglas, 132 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Mo.App.2004); see Hicks v. Div. of Employment Security, 41 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo.App.2001). As we recently explained in Bishop v. Metro Restoration Services, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 43 We cannot and will not penali......
-
Bishop v. Metro Restoration Services, Inc.
...of an attorney, which is referred to in legal proceedings as appearing pro se. She has the right to do so. Hicks v. Div. of Employment Sec., 41 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo.App.2001). However, we are required to apply the law fairly and impartially to all litigants without regard as to whether a par......
-
Kramer v. Park-et Restaurant, Inc., ED 87548.
...is a non-lawyer. Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 146 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007); Hicks v. Division of Employment Security, 41 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001). This is not due to lack of sympathy, but rather "it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial imparti......
-
Bryant v. A & P Auto Sales, LLC.
...is a non-lawyer. Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 146 (Mo.App.W.D. 2007) ; Hicks v. Div. of Employment Sec., 41 S.W.3d 638, 640 (Mo.App.S.D. 2001). This is not due to lack of sympathy, but rather "it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, ju......