Moseley v. Grundy County Dist. R-v Sch., No. ED 94192.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtPATRICIA L. COHEN
Citation319 S.W.3d 510
Decision Date24 August 2010
Docket NumberNo. ED 94192.
PartiesRobert MOSELEY, Appellant,v.GRUNDY COUNTY DISTRICT R-V SCHOOL and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

319 S.W.3d 510

Robert MOSELEY, Appellant,
v.
GRUNDY COUNTY DISTRICT R-V SCHOOL and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

No. ED 94192.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Five.

Aug. 24, 2010.


319 S.W.3d 511
Robert C. Moseley, Arbela, MO, pro se.

Grundy Co. District R-V School Galt, MO, pro se.

Shelly A. Kintzel (Div. of Employment Security), Jefferson City, MO, for respondents.

PATRICIA L. COHEN, Judge.
Introduction

Dr. Robert Moseley (Claimant) appeals pro se from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Commission (Commission), affirming the decision of the Appeals Tribunal denying him unemployment benefits. We dismiss Claimant's appeal because his brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04 so substantially that we are unable to review this appeal.1

Discussion

We hold pro se appellants to the same standards as attorneys regarding Rule 84.04's mandatory briefing rules. Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Assocs., 300 S.W.3d 580, 581 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). “While we prefer to dispose of a case on the merits whenever possible, if the deficiencies in the brief are such that no claims are preserved for appellate review, then we must dismiss.”

319 S.W.3d 512
Richardson v. Meritorious Care, Inc., 307 S.W.3d 684, 684 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) see also Rule 84.13(a). Due to Claimant's substantial failure to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04, we are compelled to dismiss his appeal.

First, Claimant failed to provide an adequate statement of facts. “The statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Rule 84.04(c). Additionally, a statement of facts may not contain facts outside the record, and each factual statement “shall have specific page references to the legal file or the transcript.” Rule 84.04(i); see Buffalo Lodging, 300 S.W.3d at 581. “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.” Buffalo Lodging, 300 S.W.3d at 581 (quotation omitted).

Here, Claimant's statement of facts is argumentive, incomplete, and contains statements contradicted by the record.2 More significantly, Claimant fails to include a single citation to the record in his statement of facts. Claimant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory requirements regarding the statement of facts is grounds, in itself, to dismiss this appeal. See id.

Second, Claimant's point on appeal fails to adhere to the requirements of Rule 84.04(d)(2). Under Rule 84.04(d)(2), a point on appeal shall: (1) identify the administrative ruling or action the appellant challenges; (2) state the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (3) explain in summary fashion why those legal reasons, in the context of the case, require reversal. Rule 84.04(d)(2)(A)-(C); Buffalo Lodging, 300 S.W.3d at 582. “The function of this rule is to give notice to the opposing party of the precise matters which must be contended with and to inform the court of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Koster v. Oxenhandler, WD 79277
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 15, 2016
    ...” WCT & D, LLC v. City of Kansas City, 476 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (quoting Moseley v. Grundy Cty. Dist. R–V Sch., 319 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) ). Even if the escape rule is presumed available to dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, application of the rule is......
  • Carmen v. Olsen, No. ED 108505
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 20, 2020
    ...how the holdings and facts of the cited cases are applicable to the present case. See Moseley v. Grundy County Dist. R-V Sch., 319 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) ; see also Washington v. Blackburn , 286 S.W.3d 818, 821 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) ("Failure to cite relevant authority sup......
  • Belden v. Belden, No. SD 31694.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 27, 2012
    ...explain why, in the context of her case, the authority supports her claim of reversible error. Moseley v. Grundy Cnty. Dist. R–V Sch., 319 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). “If an appellant fails to support his or her claim of error beyond mere conclusions, the point is considered abandon......
  • Hamilton v. Archer, No. ED 105342
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 20, 2018
    ...which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for review." Moseley v. Grundy Cty. Dist. R-V Sch. , 319 S.W.3d 510, 512 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). A point relied on that fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d) preserves nothing for review. Washington v. Blackburn , ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State ex rel. Koster v. Oxenhandler, WD 79277
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 15, 2016
    ...” WCT & D, LLC v. City of Kansas City, 476 S.W.3d 336, 343 (Mo.App.W.D.2015) (quoting Moseley v. Grundy Cty. Dist. R–V Sch., 319 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo.App.E.D.2010) ). Even if the escape rule is presumed available to dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, application of the rule is......
  • Carmen v. Olsen, No. ED 108505
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 20, 2020
    ...how the holdings and facts of the cited cases are applicable to the present case. See Moseley v. Grundy County Dist. R-V Sch., 319 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) ; see also Washington v. Blackburn , 286 S.W.3d 818, 821 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) ("Failure to cite relevant authority sup......
  • Belden v. Belden, No. SD 31694.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 27, 2012
    ...explain why, in the context of her case, the authority supports her claim of reversible error. Moseley v. Grundy Cnty. Dist. R–V Sch., 319 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). “If an appellant fails to support his or her claim of error beyond mere conclusions, the point is considered abandon......
  • Hamilton v. Archer, No. ED 105342
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 20, 2018
    ...which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for review." Moseley v. Grundy Cty. Dist. R-V Sch. , 319 S.W.3d 510, 512 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). A point relied on that fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d) preserves nothing for review. Washington v. Blackburn , ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT