Sy v. Sow

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sy v. Sow

258 S.W.3d 840, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 680, 2008 WL 2095419

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 2008

DocketWD 68235

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 258 S.W.3d 840 (Sy v. Sow) 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

Sy v. Sow, 258 S.W.3d 840, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 680, 2008 WL 2095419 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Presiding Judge.

Ousmane Sy appeals a judgment dissolving his marriage to Hadja Sow. We dismiss his appeal for numerous violations of Rule 84.04. We surmise that Mr. Sy appeals from a dissolution decree because it is attached to his Notice of Appeal. That judgment is never mentioned in his appellate brief, although numerous orders in an order of protection and a domestic violence criminal case are referred to. Although Mr. Sy proceeds without legal representation, he is bound to the same briefing requirements as counsel. C.C.J.K. ex *841 rel Kercher v. Jackson, 11 S.W.3d 110, 111 (Mo.App.2000). It is not our job to search the record unguided to construct or discover legal arguments for appellant. Grafton v. City of Plattsburg, 167 S.W.3d 731, 733 (Mo.App. W.D.2005).

The appellate brief contains no jurisdictional statement. Rule 84.04(b). There are no Points Relied On. Rule 84.04(d). There is no table of cases, statutes, or authorities. Rule 84.04(a)(1). In fact, not a single case is cited anywhere in the brief. The other deficiencies in Mr. S/s brief do not need detailing.

The appeal is dismissed.

HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge, and THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge, concur.

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

RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Presiding Judge.

Ousmane Sy appeals a judgment dissolving his marriage to Hadja Sow. We dismiss his appeal for numerous violations of Rule 84.04. We surmise that Mr. Sy appeals from a dissolution decree because it is attached to his Notice of Appeal. That judgment is never mentioned in his appellate brief, although numerous orders in an order of protection and a domestic violence criminal case are referred to. Although Mr. Sy proceeds without legal representation, he is bound to the same briefing requirements as counsel. C.C.J.K. ex *841 rel Kercher v. Jackson, 11 S.W.3d 110, 111 (Mo.App.2000). It is not our job to search the record unguided to construct or discover legal arguments for appellant. Grafton v. City of Plattsburg, 167 S.W.3d 731, 733 (Mo.App. W.D.2005).

The appellate brief contains no jurisdictional statement. Rule 84.04(b). There are no Points Relied On. Rule 84.04(d). There is no table of cases, statutes, or authorities. Rule 84.04(a)(1). In fact, not a single case is cited anywhere in the brief. The other deficiencies in Mr. S/s brief do not need detailing.

The appeal is dismissed.

HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge, and THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 S.W.3d 840, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 680, 2008 WL 2095419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sy-v-sow-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack