Pointer v. State, Dept. of Social Services, No. ED 90301.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 258 S.W.3d 453 |
| Parties | Charles POINTER, Petitioner/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Family Support Division, Respondent/Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. ED 90301. |
| Decision Date | 13 May 2008 |
v.
STATE of Missouri, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Family Support Division, Respondent/Respondent.
[258 S.W.3d 454]
Charles Henry Pointer, St. Louis, pro se.
Lasandra F. Morrison, Robert D. Nolan, Assistant Attorney General, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Before KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, P.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J., and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Charles Pointer, appeals pro se from a judgment of the trial court affirming the decision of the Director of the Family Support Division of the Department of Social Services denying his application for energy assistance benefits. Because petitioner's brief is insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, we dismiss this appeal.
We hold pro se appellants to the same standards as attorneys. Smith v. City of St. Louis Civil Service Com'n, 216 S.W.3d 698, 699 (Mo.App.2007); Kramer v. Park-Et Restaurant, Inc., 226 S.W.3d 867, 869 (Mo.App.2007); McGill v. Boeing Co., 235 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Mo.App.2007). All appellants must comply with the Supreme Court Rules, including Rule 84.04, which governs the contents of appellate briefs. Smith, 216 S.W.3d at 699. We are mindful of the problems that a pro se litigant faces; however, judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties necessitate that we do not grant a pro se appellant preferential treatment with regard to complying with the rules of appellate procedure. Kramer, 226 S.W.3d at 869; McGill, 235 S.W.3d at 577. A brief that substantially fails to comply with Rule 84.04 is inadequate to invoke the jurisdiction of this court and must be dismissed. Smith, 216 S.W.3d at 699. Rule 84.13(a) provides that allegations of error not properly briefed "shall not be considered in any civil appeal."
Petitioner's brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04 to such an extent that his appeal must be dismissed. Petitioner appeals from a decision in a contested case before the Director of the Family Support Division of the Department of Social Services that was affirmed by the circuit court. In this situation, the appellate court examines the findings and the decision of the agency and not the judgment of the circuit court. Tate v. Department of Social Services, 18 S.W.3d 3, 5 (Mo.App. 2000). We determine whether competent and substantial evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yates v. Briggs & Stratton, No. SD 29825.
...the appropriate standard of review, this Court has the authority to correct any such error. Pointer v. State, Dept. of Social Services, 258 S.W.3d 453, 455 (Mo.App.2008). Finally, the argument contains no references to the legal file or transcript as required by Rule 84.04(i). Manning v. Wa......
-
Duncan v. Duncan, No. ED 93966.
...the same standards as attorneys regarding Rule 84.04's mandatory appellate briefing rules. See Pointer v. State, Dep't of Social Servs., 258 S.W.3d 453, 454 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). While this court recognizes the problems faced by pro se litigants, we cannot give preferential treatment to non-l......
-
Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Associates, No. ED 92957.
...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 manda......
-
Wong v. Wong, No. ED 98714.
...for her claim of reversible error or explain why such reasons would support her claim. See Pointer v. State, Dept. of Soc. Services, 258 S.W.3d 453, 455 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). Third, Appellant does not comply with Rule 84.04's requirements for the argument portion of the brief. Appellant's arg......
-
Yates v. Briggs & Stratton, No. SD 29825.
...the appropriate standard of review, this Court has the authority to correct any such error. Pointer v. State, Dept. of Social Services, 258 S.W.3d 453, 455 (Mo.App.2008). Finally, the argument contains no references to the legal file or transcript as required by Rule 84.04(i). Manning v. Wa......
-
Duncan v. Duncan, No. ED 93966.
...the same standards as attorneys regarding Rule 84.04's mandatory appellate briefing rules. See Pointer v. State, Dep't of Social Servs., 258 S.W.3d 453, 454 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). While this court recognizes the problems faced by pro se litigants, we cannot give preferential treatment to non-l......
-
Johnson v. Buffalo Lodging Associates, No. ED 92957.
...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 manda......
-
Wong v. Wong, No. ED 98714.
...for her claim of reversible error or explain why such reasons would support her claim. See Pointer v. State, Dept. of Soc. Services, 258 S.W.3d 453, 455 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). Third, Appellant does not comply with Rule 84.04's requirements for the argument portion of the brief. Appellant's arg......