City of Lee's Summit v. Cook
337 S.W.3d 757
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Cook, pro se, was convicted of carrying on a nuisance in Lee's Summit and fined $400.
- He appealed the conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
- The original brief violated Rule 84.04 briefing requirements, leading to its strike.
- Cook filed an amended brief; the City moved to strike and dismiss the appeal for noncompliance.
- The court found the amended brief still defective and inherently non-preservable for review.
- The court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 and related briefing standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the briefing deficiencies bar review. | Cook argues jurisdiction and merits. | City asserts Rule 84.04 noncompliance warrants dismissal. | Dismissed for Rule 84.04 noncompliance. |
| Adequacy of the jurisdictional statement under Rule 84.04(b). | Action involves municipal annexation law applicability. | Statement lacks specific facts and applicable article/section cited. | Jurisdictional statement inadequate; dismissal upheld. |
| Adequacy of the statement of facts under Rule 84.04(c). | Facts sufficient to raise issues exist. | Facts are two sentences and omit necessary details for review. | Statement of facts inadequate; claims not preserved. |
| Adequacy of the points relied on and argument under Rule 84.04(d)-(e). | Claims of error are stated but not elaborated. | Points lack concise legal reasons and context; no standard of review. | Defects persist; no meritorious review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Frisbie, 310 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (Rule 84.04 compliance mandatory to avoid advocacy by speculation)
- Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (briefs must comply with Rule 84.04 contents)
- Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (violations of Rule 84.04 justify dismissal of appeal)
- Moreland v. Div. of Emp't Sec., 273 S.W.3d 39 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (pro se litigants are held to same briefing standards; abandoned claims may be reviewed only rarely)
- Rainey v. SSPS, Inc., 259 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (pro se briefs must meet procedural rules)
- Tavacoli v. Div. of Emp't Sec., 261 S.W.3d 708 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (statement of facts must be fair, concise, and non-argumentative)
- Kent v. Charlie Chicken, II, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 513 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (abandoned claims are rarely reviewed unless readily understandable)