Patterson v. DIERBERGS MARKETS, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Patterson v. DIERBERGS MARKETS, INC.

280 S.W.3d 787, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, 2009 WL 983129

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 14, 2009

DocketED 91774

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 S.W.3d 787 (Patterson v. DIERBERGS MARKETS, INC.) 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

Patterson v. DIERBERGS MARKETS, INC., 280 S.W.3d 787, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, 2009 WL 983129 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lutherna Patterson appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the Division of Employment Security’s denial of unemployment *788 benefits on the bases of unavailability and misconduct associated with work. Both Respondents filed motions to strike Patterson’s brief and dismiss the appeal. Because we find Patterson’s brief in gross violation of Rule 84.04, we grant Respondents’ motions.

Patterson’s brief contains no citations to statutes, case law, or any other authority. It contains no citations to the record. Her point relied does not fit the form prescribed by Rule 84.04(d). Patterson’s argument is unclear, such that to review her case, we would be forced to construct her arguments for her and find authoritative support. This would cast us in the role of an advocate for Patterson, and this is improper. See Boyd v. Boyd, 134 S.W.3d 820, 823-24 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as those represented by counsel, and their briefs must comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Blakey v. AAA Professional Pest Control, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 792, 793 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). A brief which fails to substantially comply preserves nothing for review and may be dismissed. Id. Because Patterson’s brief does not substantially comply with Rule 84.04, it preserves nothing for review.

DISMISSED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lutherna Patterson appeals the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the Division of Employment Security’s denial of unemployment *788 benefits on the bases of unavailability and misconduct associated with work. Both Respondents filed motions to strike Patterson’s brief and dismiss the appeal. Because we find Patterson’s brief in gross violation of Rule 84.04, we grant Respondents’ motions.

Patterson’s brief contains no citations to statutes, case law, or any other authority. It contains no citations to the record. Her point relied does not fit the form prescribed by Rule 84.04(d). Patterson’s argument is unclear, such that to review her case, we would be forced to construct her arguments for her and find authoritative support. This would cast us in the role of an advocate for Patterson, and this is improper. See Boyd v. Boyd, 134 S.W.3d 820, 823-24 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as those represented by counsel, and their briefs must comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Blakey v. AAA Professional Pest Control, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 792, 793 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). A brief which fails to substantially comply preserves nothing for review and may be dismissed. Id. Because Patterson’s brief does not substantially comply with Rule 84.04, it preserves nothing for review.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 S.W.3d 787, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 464, 2009 WL 983129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-dierbergs-markets-inc-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack