Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Associates, No. ED 92957.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Patricia L. Cohen |
| Parties | James JOHNSON, Appellant, v. BUFFALO LODGING ASSOCIATES and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 15 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 92957. |
v.
BUFFALO LODGING ASSOCIATES and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
[300 S.W.3d 581]
James Johnson, St. Louis, MO, pro se.
Buffalo Lodging Associates, University Park, FL, pro se.
Larry R. Ruhmann, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
PATRICIA L. COHEN, Judge.
James Johnson (Claimant) appeals pro se from a final order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. The Commission's order affirmed the Division of Employment Security Appeals Tribunal's decision denying Claimant unemployment compensation benefits. Claimant's brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure so substantially that we cannot review this appeal, and therefore dismiss it.
We hold pro se appellants to the same standards as attorneys. Pointer v. State, Dept. of Social Servs., 258 S.W.3d 453, 454 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). Accordingly, pro se appellants must comply with Supreme Court Rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets forth mandatory rules for appellate briefing. Kuenz v. Walker, 244 S.W.3d 191, 193 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). Failure to conform to the mandates of Rule 84.04 results in unpreserved allegations of error and constitutes grounds for dismissal of the appeal. Id.
Claimant failed to comply with Rule 84.04 in several respects, leaving nothing for appellate review. See Schaefer v. Altman, 250 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). First, Claimant's statement of facts does not contain "a fair and concise statement of facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." Rule 84.04(c); see Pattie v. French Quarter Resorts, 213 S.W.3d 237, 239 (Mo.App. S.D.2007). The statement of facts should "define the scope of the controversy and afford the appellate court an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the case." Bieri v. Gower, 157 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005). Claimant's narration of the facts is argumentative, incomplete, and references matters outside the record on appeal. See Pattie, 213 S.W.3d at 239.
Most importantly, Claimant fails to support each of his factual statements with citations to the legal file or transcript. Rule 84.04(i); see Pattie, 213 S.W.3d at 239. "Rule 84.04(i)'s requirement that the appellant support factual statements in its brief with record citations is mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts because courts cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assertions in the brief are supported by the record." Rainey v. SSPS, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 603, 605 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (quotation omitted). These violations of Rules 84.04(c) and (i) alone warrant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuire v. Edwards, No. ED 106860
...legal reasons for the claim on appeal, and explain why the legal reasons support the claim of error." Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580, 582 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). Dr. McGuire’s points on appeal do not identify the action she challenges; concisely state the legal reason for ......
-
In Interest Of D.A.B., No. ED 106393
...statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." See Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs. , 300 S.W.3d 580, 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). While Mother’s brief includes a statement of facts, it entirely ignores relevant facts in the record related to ......
-
Deere v. Deere, WD 83906
...principles of law and the facts of the particular case.’ " Duncan , 320 S.W.3d at 727 (quoting Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs. , 300 S.W.3d 580, 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) ). Instead, Blankenship's brief "mainly consists of bare conclusions that lack any legal analysis or supporting ration......
-
Medlin v. RLC, Inc., No. SD 33437
...why he fails to do so, we deem his contention abandoned and need not address it any further.See Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580, 582 (Mo.App.2009). Medlin's first point is denied. The plain and unambiguous language as to the amount of the mechanic's lien judgment also doo......
-
McGuire v. Edwards, No. ED 106860
...legal reasons for the claim on appeal, and explain why the legal reasons support the claim of error." Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580, 582 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). Dr. McGuire’s points on appeal do not identify the action she challenges; concisely state the legal reason for ......
-
In Interest Of D.A.B., No. ED 106393
...statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument." See Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs. , 300 S.W.3d 580, 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). While Mother’s brief includes a statement of facts, it entirely ignores relevant facts in the record related to ......
-
Deere v. Deere, WD 83906
...principles of law and the facts of the particular case.’ " Duncan , 320 S.W.3d at 727 (quoting Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs. , 300 S.W.3d 580, 581 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) ). Instead, Blankenship's brief "mainly consists of bare conclusions that lack any legal analysis or supporting ration......
-
Medlin v. RLC, Inc., No. SD 33437
...why he fails to do so, we deem his contention abandoned and need not address it any further.See Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580, 582 (Mo.App.2009). Medlin's first point is denied. The plain and unambiguous language as to the amount of the mechanic's lien judgment also doo......