Mueller v. Division of Employment Security

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mueller v. Division of Employment Security

85 S.W.3d 776, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2034, 2002 WL 31249899

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 8, 2002

DocketNo. WD 60525

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 S.W.3d 776 (Mueller v. Division of Employment Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mueller v. Division of Employment Security, 85 S.W.3d 776, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2034, 2002 WL 31249899 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.

Diana Mueller files a pro se appeal from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission refusing to backdate her claim for unemployment compensation from the filing date of May 9, 2001, to the date of her last employment with Washington University on November 20, 2000. Because her brief fails to comply with substantially all of the requirements of Rule 84.04, it preserves nothing for appellate review and her appeal is dismissed.

A pro se party is still required to comply with the same procedural requirements as a party represented by counsel. Nell v. Fern-Thatcher Co., 952 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Mo.App.1997). Appellant’s brief contains no jurisdictional statement in violation of Rule 84.04(b). The “Statement of Facts” is argumentative in nature and contains not a single reference to the transcript or legal file in violation of Rule 84.04(c) and (i). The brief contains no Points Relied On in violation of Rule 84.04(d). There is no argument developed in the brief. A section entitled “Conclusions of Law” contains only the statement “It is against the law to discriminate against the mentally ill.”

Finally, the brief contains not a single citation to any legal authority and no statement of the standard of legal review. In confirmation of these deficiencies, appellant states that she is not a lawyer and invites the respondent or the court to find the legal authority for her. This is neither the respondent’s nor the court’s obligation. The brief presents nothing for review and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Bratcher v. Sequel Corp., 969 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Mo.App.1998).

PATRICIA A. BRECKENRIDGE, Presiding Judge, and VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Judge.

Diana Mueller files a pro se appeal from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission refusing to backdate her claim for unemployment compensation from the filing date of May 9, 2001, to the date of her last employment with Washington University on November 20, 2000. Because her brief fails to comply with substantially all of the requirements of Rule 84.04, it preserves nothing for appellate review and her appeal is dismissed.

A pro se party is still required to comply with the same procedural requirements as a party represented by counsel. Nell v. Fern-Thatcher Co., 952 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Mo.App.1997). Appellant’s brief contains no jurisdictional statement in violation of Rule 84.04(b). The “Statement of Facts” is argumentative in nature and contains not a single reference to the transcript or legal file in violation of Rule 84.04(c) and (i). The brief contains no Points Relied On in violation of Rule 84.04(d). There is no argument developed in the brief. A section entitled “Conclusions of Law” contains only the statement “It is against the law to discriminate against the mentally ill.”

Finally, the brief contains not a single citation to any legal authority and no statement of the standard of legal review. In confirmation of these deficiencies, appellant states that she is not a lawyer and invites the respondent or the court to find the legal authority for her. This is neither the respondent’s nor the court’s obligation. The brief presents nothing for review and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Bratcher v. Sequel Corp., 969 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Mo.App.1998).

PATRICIA A. BRECKENRIDGE, Presiding Judge, and VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.W.3d 776, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2034, 2002 WL 31249899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-division-of-employment-security-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack