Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adams v. Division of Employment Security

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Third Division

May 5, 2015

LISA ADAMS, Appellant,
v.
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent

Page 919

Appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission.

Lisa Adams, Appellant Pro se.

Larry R. Ruhmann, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Three: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge. All concur.

OPINION

Gary D. Witt, Judge.

Page 920

Pro se appellant Lisa Adams (" Adams" ) appears to appeal from two decisions of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (" Commission" ). In one decision, the Commission affirmed the determination that she was ineligible for benefits because she was not available for work. In the second decision, the Commission affirmed the determination that she was overpaid benefits. Because of numerous briefing deficiencies that violate Rule 84.04,[1] we dismiss this appeal.

Briefing Deficiencies Require Dismissal of Appeal

We cannot begin to ascertain the key facts surrounding the Commission's two decisions nor consider the possible merits of Adams's points on appeal due to gross inadequacies in her amended appellate brief.[2] Her brief fails to meet even the most basic requirements of Rule 84.04. " Rule 84.04 lists the requirements which an appellant's brief must meet. These requirements are mandatory." Lanham v. Div. of Employment Sec., 340 S.W.3d 324, 326 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (citations omitted).

First, Adams's jurisdictional statement does not comply with Rule 84.04(b). Adams's statement fails to identify which constitutional provision grants jurisdiction of this appeal in the Court of Appeals. Finnical v. Finnical, 81 S.W.3d 554, 557 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). " A deficient jurisdictional statement fails to invoke the jurisdiction of this court." Id. (citation omitted). We are not required to search through court records to discover the jurisdictional basis for Adams's appeal.

Next, in violation of Rule 84.04(c), Adams's statement of facts is argumentative in that it contains only facts favoring Adams. " The primary purpose of the statement of facts is to afford an immediate, accurate, complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case." Fesenmeyer v. Land Bank of Kansas City, 453 S.W.3d 271, 274 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (citation omitted). In addition, Adams failed to provide all relevant page references to the legal file or transcript in her statement of facts and in her argument section, as required under Rule 84.04(c) and (e). This requirement is mandatory and essential for the effective functioning of appellate courts, which cannot spend time searching the record to determine if factual assertions stated in the brief are supported by the record. Ireland v. Div. of Employment Sec., 390 S.W.3d 895, 900 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (citation omitted). Failure to follow this rule is particularly problematic in Adams's appeal because the legal file contains 69 pages, and the transcript contains 450 pages.

Additionally, Adams's second point relied on[3] fails to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.