Williams v. Barnes

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. Barnes

177 S.W.3d 846, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1592, 2005 WL 2746339

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketED 85815

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 S.W.3d 846 (Williams v. Barnes) 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

Williams v. Barnes, 177 S.W.3d 846, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1592, 2005 WL 2746339 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ollie Williams (‘Williams”), an inmate at the Northeast Correctional Center and appearing pro se, appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Larry L. Kendrick presiding, dismissing Williams’s petition which alleged negligence on the part of numerous prison officials in investigating Williams’s allegations that he was sexually harassed while an inmate at the Northeast Correctional Center.

We have thoroughly reviewed Williams’s brief, and we agree with Respondents’ argument that Williams’s points relied on fail to substantially comply with Rule 84.04(d). Therefore, pursuant to Mello v. Williams, 73 S.W.3d 681 (Mo.App. E.D.2002), Williams’s appeal is dismissed.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ollie Williams (‘Williams”), an inmate at the Northeast Correctional Center and appearing pro se, appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Larry L. Kendrick presiding, dismissing Williams’s petition which alleged negligence on the part of numerous prison officials in investigating Williams’s allegations that he was sexually harassed while an inmate at the Northeast Correctional Center.

We have thoroughly reviewed Williams’s brief, and we agree with Respondents’ argument that Williams’s points relied on fail to substantially comply with Rule 84.04(d). Therefore, pursuant to Mello v. Williams, 73 S.W.3d 681 (Mo.App. E.D.2002), Williams’s appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.W.3d 846, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1592, 2005 WL 2746339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-barnes-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack