Snelling v. Housing Authority of St. Louis County, No. 72114
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | KAROHL; AHRENS, P.J., and CRANDALL |
| Citation | 956 S.W.2d 323 |
| Decision Date | 16 September 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 72114 |
| Parties | Lonnie SNELLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, et al., Respondents. |
Page 323
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, et al., Respondents.
Eastern District,
Division Three.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to
Supreme Court Denied Oct. 30, 1997.
Application to Transfer Denied
Dec. 23, 1997.
Lonnie Snelling, St. Louis, pro se.
Green, Schaaf & Margo, P.C., Joe D. Jacobson, Clayton, for respondents.
KAROHL, Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant appeals dismissal of all counts of his petition against Housing Authority of St. Louis County and others. The court dismissed the original petition filed by plaintiff against the Housing Authority and five former tenants. Plaintiff sought legal and equitable relief for civil rights violations, breach of contract and torts related to leases of apartments under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 Housing Voucher Program.
For a number of reasons the motion of the Housing Authority and others to dismiss this appeal is sustained. First, the legal file does not contain the petition which was dismissed by the trial court and is the subject of this appeal. It contains an amended petition which was not the subject of dismissal. In the absence of compliance with Rule 81.12 we are unable to review the points on appeal. Second, appellant's brief does not
Page 324
contain a statement of facts complying with Rule 84.04(c). His statements of fact are unsupported by citation to the record. He presents a number of "facts" not relevant to any issue on appeal. The "facts" presented are argumentative.Gratuitously, we have reviewed as much of the record as was presented by appellant. It appears the trial court did not err in dismissing all counts of the original petition because they are barred by the legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Appeal dismissed.
AHRENS, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callahan v. Precythe, WD 81964
...the absence of compliance with Rule 81.12 we are unable to review the points on appeal." Snelling v. Hous. Auth. of St. Louis Cty. , 956 S.W.2d 323, 323 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Callahan’s brief is deficient in several respects. Rule 84.04(c) provides 577 S.W.3d 162 that "[a]ll statements of f......
-
Callahan v. Precythe, WD 81964
...the absence of compliance with Rule 81.12 we are unable to review the points on appeal." Snelling v. Hous. Auth. of St. Louis Cty. , 956 S.W.2d 323, 323 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Callahan’s brief is deficient in several respects. Rule 84.04(c) provides 577 S.W.3d 162 that "[a]ll state......