Ward v. United Engineering Co., No. ED 90324.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtMary K. Hoff
Citation249 S.W.3d 285
PartiesShannon WARD, Claimant/Appellant, v. UNITED ENGINEERING COMPANY, Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. ED 90324.
Decision Date08 April 2008
249 S.W.3d 285
Shannon WARD, Claimant/Appellant,
v.
UNITED ENGINEERING COMPANY, Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
No. ED 90324.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
April 8, 2008.

[249 S.W.3d 286]

Shannon Ward, Leadington, MO, pro se.

Rachel M. Lewis, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

OPINION

MARY K. HOFF, Presiding Judge.


Shannon Ward (Claimant) appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirming the Appeals Tribunal's determination that Claimant did not have good cause to extend the thirty-day statutory period to file an appeal from the decision of the Missouri Division of Employment Securities (Division) denying Claimant unemployment benefits. Because Claimant's appellate brief fails to comply with the appellate briefing requirements as provided by Rule 84.041, we dismiss the appeal.

The Division's initial decision to deny Claimant unemployment benefits was entered on February 21, 2007, and mailed to

249 S.W.3d 287

the address Claimant had provided. The Division's decision became final thirty days later on March 23, 2007, pursuant to Section 288.070.42. Claimant waited several months to investigate the status of his claim and did not file an appeal until May 29, 2007. Subsequently, the Appeals Tribunal filed and mailed Claimant an order of dismissal on June 4, 2007. On June 13, 2007, Claimant filed a written request that the order be set aside. Though Claimant had well exceeded the thirty-day statutory period to file his appeal, the Appeals Tribunal agreed to set aside the order of dismissal and set the matter for hearing on June 29, 2007. After the hearing, the Appeals Tribunal concluded that Claimant had not shown good cause to extend the statutory deadline and upheld the Division's decision. After the Commission affirmed this decision, Claimant filed his notice of appeal and appellate brief pro se.

Before we consider the merits of the case, however, we must first address the apparent deficiencies of Claimant's brief, which does not comply, in form or substance, with Rule 84.04. In every case, we must determine, sua sponte, our jurisdiction. Finnical v. Finnical, 81 S.W.3d 554, 557-58 (Mo.App. W.D.2002). A deficient appellate brief that does not comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for appellate review and is inadequate to invoke our jurisdiction. Livingston v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 617, 619 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006).

Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as are attorneys and must comply with the Supreme Court's rules of procedure. Gant v. Lou Fusz Motor Co., 153 S.W.3d 866, 866 (Mo.App. E.D.2004); Davis v. Coleman, 93 S.W.3d 742, 742 (Mo. App. E.D.2002). Judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties necessitates that we do not grant pro se appellants preferential treatment with regard to their compliance with those procedural rules. Kramer v. Park-Et Restaurant, Inc., 226 S.W.3d 867, 869 (Mo.App. E.D.2007).

Rule 84.04 provides the requirements for appellate briefs, and a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • In re Jacobs, ED 109026
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 6 Julio 2021
    ...that have not been made." FIA Card Servs., NA. v. Hayes , 339 S.W.3d 515, 517 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting Ward v. United Eng'g Co. , 249 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) ). The policy behind Rule 84.04(d) is an appellant's brief should give notice to the respondent of the precise matt......
  • Hamilton v. Archer, No. ED 105342
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 20 Marzo 2018
    ...grant pro se litigants preferential treatment with regard to their compliance with those procedural rules." Ward v. United Eng'g Co. , 249 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). While we prefer to dispose of a case on the merits whenever possible, if the deficiencies in the brief are such th......
  • Dancin Development v. Nrt Missouri, No. ED 92128.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 28 Abril 2009
    ...inadequate briefing or to undertake additional research and scour the record to cure such a deficiency." Ward v. United Engineering Co., 249 S.W.3d 285, 288 (Mo.App. Appellant's first point on appeal states: "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SUSTAINING [RESPONDENT'S] JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGME......
  • State ex rel. Koster v. Allen, No. SD 29022.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 14 Octubre 2009
    ...equally applicable to pro se appellants. Steltenpohl v. Steltenpohl, 256 S.W.3d 597, 598 (Mo.App. 2008); Ward v. United Engineering Co., 249 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo.App.2008); McGill v. Boeing Co., supra, at 577. "Judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties necessitates......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Hamilton v. Archer, No. ED 105342
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 20 Marzo 2018
    ...pro se litigants preferential treatment with regard to their compliance with those procedural rules." Ward v. United Eng'g Co. , 249 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). While we prefer to dispose of a case on the merits whenever possible, if the deficiencies in the brief are such tha......
  • In re Jacobs, ED 109026
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 6 Julio 2021
    ...have not been made." FIA Card Servs., NA. v. Hayes , 339 S.W.3d 515, 517 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting Ward v. United Eng'g Co. , 249 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) ). The policy behind Rule 84.04(d) is an appellant's brief should give notice to the respondent of the precise matt......
  • Dancin Development v. Nrt Missouri, No. ED 92128.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 28 Abril 2009
    ...briefing or to undertake additional research and scour the record to cure such a deficiency." Ward v. United Engineering Co., 249 S.W.3d 285, 288 (Mo.App. Appellant's first point on appeal states: "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SUSTAINING [RESPONDENT'S] JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMEN......
  • Bolden v. State, ED 109552
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 23 Noviembre 2021
    ...have not been made." FIA Card Servs., NA. v. Hayes , 339 S.W.3d 515, 517 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (quoting Ward v. United Eng'g Co. , 249 S.W.3d 285, 287 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) ). The policy behind Rule 84.04(d) is an appellant's brief should give notice to the respondent of the precise matt......
  • 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