Shochet v. Allen, 74489
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | MARY K. HOFF; GARY M. GAERTNER, Judge and RHODES RUSSELL |
| Citation | 987 S.W.2d 516 |
| Parties | Randall SHOCHET, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Terry C. ALLEN, Craft, Fridkin & Rhyne, Daniel Barklage, Barklage, Barklage, Heywood & Brett (now known as Barklage, Barklage, Brett, Ohlms & Martin Defendants/Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 74489,74489 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1999 |
Page 516
v.
Terry C. ALLEN, Craft, Fridkin & Rhyne, Daniel Barklage,
Barklage, Barklage, Heywood & Brett (now known as
Barklage, Barklage, Brett, Ohlms &
Martin Defendants/Respondents.
Eastern District,
Division Four.
Page 517
Randall M. Shochet, Chicago, IL, pro se.
Joseph F. Devereux, Jr., Devereux, Murphy, Striler, Brickley & Sher, L.L.C., St. Louis, Attys for Allen & Craft, Fridkin & Rhyne.
Bernard A. Reinert, St. Louis, Attys for Barklage, Barklage, Brett, Ohlms & Martin.
MARY K. HOFF, Presiding Judge.
Randall Shochet (Client) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered in favor of Terry C. Allen; Craft, Fridkin & Rhyne; Daniel Barklage; and Barklage, Barklage, Heywood & Brett (now known as Barklage, Barklage, Brett, Ohlms & Martin) (collectively, Counsel) upon the granting of Counsel's motion for summary judgment. Counsel filed a motion to strike Client's brief on appeal (motion to strike), which was taken with the case. We grant Counsel's motion to strike and additionally dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d). 1
Client, then a licensed and practicing dentist in Missouri, received a suspension from the Missouri Dental Board (Board) in 1990 for insurance fraud. Counsel represented Client in the Board's proceedings. The terms of the suspension precluded Client from providing dental services, employing personnel in a dental practice, and deriving revenue from a dental practice. Subsequently, the Board brought a second complaint against Client, alleging violations of the terms of the suspension. Client obtained other attorneys to represent him in those proceedings.
Page 518
In this lawsuit, Client alleges Counsel is liable for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty in the representation of Client during the first Board proceedings. The trial court granted Counsel's motion for summary judgment. This appeal, in which Client is proceeding pro se, followed.
By the motion to strike, Counsel argues Client's brief should be stricken because (1) the "Points Relied On" do not comply with Rule 84.04(d) and Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978); (2) the "Jurisdictional Statement" is deficient; and (3) the "Statement of Facts" is unfair and inadequate. Although we find both the "Jurisdictional Statement" and the "Statement of Facts" are inadequate, we will focus our attention on the "Points Relied On."
Rule 84.04(d) requires an appellant, in each point on appeal, 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." "Setting out only abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ruling of the court is not a compliance with this Rule." Rule 84.04(d). In Thummel, the Missouri Supreme Court stated Rule 84.04(d) mandates that each point relied on consist of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel v. Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 24693.
...in points on appeal as the means for facilitating the appellate process is essential. 570 S.W.2d at 686; see also Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo. Albeit that "[v]iolations of rules of appellate procedure, and specifically Rule 84.04, constitute grounds for a court to dismiss an a......
-
A.D. v. N.R. (In re Estate of L.G.T.), SD 32692.
...evidentiary challenges were preserved for our review as they were not presented in Mother's points relied on. See Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo.App.E.D.1999) (“[i]f a point does not set forth what trial court ruling is challenged, it does not preserve anything for review on appe......
-
Environ. Energy Partners v. Siemens Bldg., 26521.
...what an appellant's brief shall contain. "Violations of Rule 84.04 are grounds for a court to dismiss an appeal." Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo.App.1999). Whether an appeal will be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is discretionary. Keeney v. Missouri Highway & Tra......
-
L.G.T. v. N.R., SD32692
...evidentiary challenges were preserved for our review as they were not presented in Mother's points relied on. See Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) ("[i]f a point does not set forth what trial court ruling is challenged, it does not preserve anything for review on a......
-
Daniel v. Indiana Mills & Mfg., Inc., 24693.
...in points on appeal as the means for facilitating the appellate process is essential. 570 S.W.2d at 686; see also Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo. Albeit that "[v]iolations of rules of appellate procedure, and specifically Rule 84.04, constitute grounds for a court to dismiss an a......
-
A.D. v. N.R. (In re Estate of L.G.T.), SD 32692.
...evidentiary challenges were preserved for our review as they were not presented in Mother's points relied on. See Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo.App.E.D.1999) (“[i]f a point does not set forth what trial court ruling is challenged, it does not preserve anything for review on appe......
-
Environ. Energy Partners v. Siemens Bldg., 26521.
...what an appellant's brief shall contain. "Violations of Rule 84.04 are grounds for a court to dismiss an appeal." Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo.App.1999). Whether an appeal will be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is discretionary. Keeney v. Missouri Highway & Tra......
-
L.G.T. v. N.R., SD32692
...evidentiary challenges were preserved for our review as they were not presented in Mother's points relied on. See Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) ("[i]f a point does not set forth what trial court ruling is challenged, it does not preserve anything for review on a......