Willis v. Missouri Farm Bureau Services, Inc.
396 S.W.3d 451
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Willis appeals a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denial of unemployment benefits on the basis of misconduct; the appeal is dismissed for briefing deficiencies.
- Willis sued pro se; her initial Rule 84.04 brief was struck for multiple violations, and her amended brief likewise fails to comply.
- Farm Bureau moves to strike Willis’s amended brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04; the parties seek dismissal rather than merits consideration.
- Rule 84.04 is mandatory to prevent appellate briefs from becoming advocacy beyond the record; violations support dismissal.
- Judge’s review finds Willis’s jurisdictional statement inadequate under Rule 84.04(b), the statement of facts argumentative and uncited, and the sole point fails to meet Rule 84.04(d)–(e) requirements.
- Because the brief is so noncompliant, the court would have to speculate about Willis’s claims; the court dismisses the appeal without reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 84.04 defects warrant dismissal. | Willis contends appeal should proceed despite defects. | Willis’s briefs misstate and lack required content; defects warrant dismissal. | Dismissed for Rule 84.04 violations. |
| Whether the jurisdictional statement meets Rule 84.04(b). | Jurisdictional basis asserted is sufficient to invoke appellate review. | Statement insufficient to demonstrate applicable constitutional provision. | Inadequate jurisdictional statement; dismissal proper. |
| Whether the statement of facts and point relied on comply with Rule 84.04. | Facts presented support her claims on review. | Facts are argumentative, uncited, and fail to present a fair, concise statement. | Noncompliant; merits not reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leonard v. Frisbie, 310 S.W.3d 704 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (Rule 84.04 violations are grounds for dismissal)
- Brown v. Amenstar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007) (mandatory briefing standards; cannot speculate)
- Shochet v. Allen, 987 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) (violations justify dismissal)
- Moreland v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 273 S.W.3d 39 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (pro se parties bound by procedural rules)
- Tavacoli v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 261 S.W.3d 708 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (abandoned or unclear arguments; need clear briefing)
- Waller v. A.C. Cleaners Mgmt., Inc., 371 S.W.3d 6 (Mo.App. E.D.2012) (need citations to record; avoid speculation)
- Martin v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 384 S.W.3d 378 (Mo.App. E.D.2012) (clarity and focus required in points and arguments)