385 S.W.3d 489
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Garcia appeals a full order of protection granted in favor of his former live-in girlfriend, M.H.
- He appears pro se and the court dismisses the appeal for Rule 84.04 briefing violations.
- Rule 84.04 requires specific briefing contents, including a table of authorities and proper argument structure.
- Garcia’s brief identifies only one case and lacks page references in the table of authorities.
- The brief has no argument section and contains no specific references to the record on appeal.
- The court concludes it cannot discern Garcia’s exact claim and dismisses the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for briefing deficiencies. | Garcia's last name used; deficiencies hinder merits. | Rule 84.04 violations justify dismissal to prevent non-merits guidance. | Yes; appeal dismissed for Rule 84.04 deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (pro se briefs must comply with briefing rules)
- Biersmith v. Curry Ass’n Mgmt., Inc., 359 S.W.3d 84 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (violations of Rule 84.04 grounds for dismissal)
- Patrick v. Monte Owens Agency, Inc., 332 S.W.3d 917 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (Rule 84.04 compliance required)
- Leonard v. Frisbie, 310 S.W.3d 704 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (court may dismiss for briefing deficiencies)
- Lanham v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 340 S.W.3d 324 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (discretion to dismiss when deficient)
- Shumpert v. Shumpert, 144 S.W.3d 317 (Mo.App. E.D.2004) (difficulty in ruling without proper record)