Locations

People Search

Filter
View All
Loading... Sorry, No results.
bscr
{{attorney.N}} {{attorney.R}}
{{attorney.O}}
Page {{currentPage + 1}} of {{totalPages}} [{{attorneys.length}} results]

loading trending trending Insights on baker sterchi

FILTER
Apr 15, 2016

These Rules Aren't Meant to be Broken

ABSTRACT: Failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure constitutes grounds for dismissal.

Appellate briefing requirements in Rule 84.04 are mandatory and any failure to follow them may lead to dismissal.  Appellant Steele’s brief lacked any legal argument to support her claim of reversible error, as required by Rule 84.04(d)-(e).  The brief failed to cite even a single case and “completely fail[ed] to show how the principles of law interact with the facts of the case.”  As such, appellee was left to infer and guess as to what Steele’s legal claims actually were.  Identifying this practice as “unacceptable,” the Court stated that it was unwilling to attempt to decipher and supplement her arguments; doing so would place the Court in the position of being Steele’s advocate.  Steele’s appeal was therefore dismissed. Sharon E. Steele v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., Case No. ED102653 (Mo.App. April 12, 2016).

Bottom line: follow the Rules.