Schneller v. GEICO, s. 18946
| Decision Date | 15 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 18946,18948,s. 18946 |
| Parties | Dr. Joe SCHNELLER, Appellant, v. GEICO, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dr. Joe Schneller, pro se.
Bradley J. Fisher, Lee Ann Miller, Woolsey, Fisher, Whiteaker & McDonald, Springfield, for respondent.
Appellant Joe Schneller, who identifies his business with the words "Schneller's Chiropractic Clinic" immediately following his name on the small claims petitions initiating each of the actions that were appealed and consolidated by this court, brought identical actions in the small claims division of the Circuit Court of Barry County, Missouri. He sought $1,500 damages in each case "for services rendered." 1
Following entry of judgments in favor of appellant, respondent GEICO filed applications for trial de novo. The circuit court entered judgments for GEICO. Dr. Schneller appeals. After appellant filed identical briefs in each appeal, respondent filed motions to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, this court finds the motions to dismiss the appeals are well-taken.
Respondent's motions seek dismissal of the appeals for appellant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04. The motions allege appellant's briefs fail to comply with the requirement of Rule 84.04(b) that "[t]he jurisdictional statement shall set forth sufficient factual data to demonstrate the applicability of the particular provision or provisions of Article V, Section 3, of the Constitution whereon jurisdiction is sought to be predicated."
The motions further allege that the statements of facts fail to comply with requirements of Rule 84.04(c), i.e., that a "statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument"; and that the points relied on fail to comply with requirements of Rule 84.04(d) that require points relied on to "state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous, with citations of authorities thereunder."
The only difference in the two sets of briefs appellant filed are the case numbers on the respective covers. This court will refer to "appellant's brief" with the understanding that those references are applicable to the briefs in No. 18946 and No. 18948.
Appellant is before this court pro se. He is, nevertheless, held to the same standard as a licensed attorney. As explained in Sutton v. Goldenberg, 862 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.App.1993):
While this court recognizes the problems faced by pro se litigants, we cannot relax our standards for non lawyers. Brown v. City of St. Louis, 842 S.W.2d 163, 165 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). It is not for lack of sympathy but rather it is necessitated by the requirement of judicial impartiality, judicial economy and fairness to all parties.
Rule 84.04(a) specifies what an appellant's brief must contain:
The brief for appellant shall contain: (1) A concise statement of the grounds on which jurisdiction of the review court is invoked; (2) A statement of the facts; (3) The points relied upon; and (4) An argument which shall substantially follow the order of "Points Relied On."
The jurisdictional statement in appellant's brief states, It sets forth no factual data that demonstrates applicability of any provision of Mo. Const. art. V, § 3, from which this court derives appellate jurisdiction. 2 Appellant's brief is deficient in that it does not contain a jurisdictional statement as required by Rule 84.04(b).
Appellant's statement of facts consists of five "subparagraphs" denominated a through e. Each subparagraph consists of one statement followed by a parenthetical expression that references the legal file, a document included in the legal file, or a case citation. Paragraph c indicates "Copy attached" that apparently refers to the judgment entered by the trial court. Two of the five statements are not complete sentences. It is not "a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination." It does not comply with Rule 84.04(c).
None of appellant's points on appeal comply with Rule 84.04(d). 3
Three things are required with respect to points relied on: (1) a statement of the action or ruling of the trial court about which the party complains; (2) a statement that specifies why the ruling was erroneous; and (3) a statement informing the appellate court wherein the evidence at trial supports the position the party asserts the trial court should have taken.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kent v. Charlie Chicken, II, Inc., 70469
...a reference to the transcript, legal file, or an exhibit. This is not a proper format for the statement of facts. See Schneller v. GEICO, 873 S.W.2d 679, 681 (Mo.App.1994). The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding......
-
England v. Regan Marketing, Inc., 21180
...procedural requirements as a party represented by counsel. Sours v. Pierce, 908 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Mo.App. S.D.1995); Schneller v. GEICO, 873 S.W.2d 679, 680 (Mo.App. S.D.1994). In Walker v. Skaggs Community Hospital, 935 S.W.2d 370 (Mo.App. S.D.1996), this court held an appellant's brief (pr......
-
Reed v. Cirtin
...judicial economy and fairness to all parties. Sutton v. Goldenberg, 862 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Mo.App.1993). See also Schneller v. GEICO, 873 S.W.2d 679, 680 (Mo.App.1994). Rule 84.04(a) sets forth what an appellant brief must The brief for appellant shall contain: (1) A detailed table of content......
-
Hampton V. Davenport
...(Mo.App.1990). Judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties require reasonable compliance. Schneller v. GEICO, 873 S.W.2d 679, 680 (Mo.App. 1994). "[i]t is not the duty of an appellate court to become an advocate for the appellant and search the record for error; the......