Yates v. Briggs & Stratton

Citation302 S.W.3d 776
Decision Date02 February 2010
Docket NumberNo. SD 29825.,SD 29825.
PartiesDianna L. YATES, Claimant-Appellant, v. BRIGGS & STRATTON, Employer, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
302 S.W.3d 776
Dianna L. YATES, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
BRIGGS & STRATTON, Employer, and
Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
No. SD 29825.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.
February 2, 2010.

Dianna L. Yates, pro se.

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

JEFFREY W. BATES, Presiding Judge.


Dianna Yates (Yates) appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) denying her claim for trade adjustment assistance benefits pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §§ 2291-2298. The Commission determined that Yates was not entitled to such benefits because she had neither enrolled in an approved training program nor received a written waiver of the training requirement before the appropriate deadline expired. Yates appealed from that decision. The Division of Employment Security has requested that this appeal be dismissed because Yates' brief does not comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04.1

Yates has chosen to proceed pro se on appeal. We fully acknowledge her right to do so, but she is bound by the same rules of procedure as parties who are represented by counsel. Kline v. Casey's General Stores, Inc., 998 S.W.2d 140, 141 (Mo.App.1999). While this Court recognizes the problems faced by pro se litigants, we cannot relax our standards for non-lawyers. Id. "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." Id.; Carden v. City of Rolla, 290 S.W.3d

302 S.W.3d 777

728, 729 (Mo.App.2009). As our Supreme Court explained in Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978):

Ordinarily, an appellate court sits as a court of review. Its function is not to hear evidence and, based thereon, to make an original determination. Instead, it provides an opportunity to examine asserted error in the trial court which is of such a nature that the complaining party is entitled to a new trial or outright reversal or some modification of the judgment entered. It is not the function of the appellate court to serve as advocate for any party to an appeal. . . . When counsel fail in their duty by filing briefs which are not in conformity with the applicable rules and do not sufficiently advise the court of the contentions asserted and the merit thereof, the court is left with the dilemma of deciding that case (and possibly establishing precedent for future cases) on the basis of inadequate briefing and advocacy or undertaking additional research and briefing to supply the deficiency. Courts should not be asked or expected to assume such a role.

Id. at 686; Kline, 998 S.W.2d at 141. Accordingly, we must hold Yates to the same standards of practice and procedure on appeal that we would expect of an attorney.

Rule 84.04 lists the requirements which an appellant's brief must meet. These requirements are mandatory. Coyne v. Coyne, 17 S.W.3d 904, 906 (Mo.App.2000). Yates' four-page brief is deficient in the following respects.

First, the table of contents contains no table of cases, statutes and other authorities cited. Rule 84.04(a)(1); Chang v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Exec. Bd. of the Mo. Baptist Convention v. Windermere Baptist Conference Ctr., Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 2014
    ...The Executive Board's failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is so serious as to impede our appellate review. See Yates v. Briggs & Stratton, 302 S.W.3d 776, 778 (Mo.App. S.D.2010). The Executive Board has now presented its claim to a Missouri appellate court on four occasions, and at this stage......
  • Exec. Bd. of the Mo. Baptist Convention v. Windermere Baptist Conference Ctr., Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 2014
    ...The Executive Board's failure to comply with Rule 84.04 is so serious as to impede our appellate review. See Yates v. Briggs & Stratton, 302 S.W.3d 776, 778 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010). The Executive Board has now presented its claim to a Missouri appellate court on four occasions, and at this stag......
  • Lanham v. Div. of Employment Sec.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 2011
    ...“Rule 84.04 lists the requirements which an appellant's brief must meet. These requirements are mandatory.” Yates v. Briggs & Stratton, 302 S.W.3d 776, 777 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (citing Coyne v. Coyne, 17 S.W.3d 904, 906 (Mo.App. E.D.2000)). For example, as required by Rule 84.04, Lanham has n......
  • Shields v. L & P Transp. LLC
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 4, 2010
    ...to the record, and the brief does not have an appendix.” 3 The requirements of Rule 84.04 are mandatory. Yates v. Briggs & Stratton, 302 S.W.3d 776, 777 (Mo.App. S.D.2010). The failure to comply with Rule 84.04 constitutes grounds for Hankins v. Reliance Auto., Inc., 312 S.W.3d 491 (Mo.App.......
  • 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