Legal Opinion
Woodard v. SmithKline Beecham/Quest
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided October 24, 2000No. ED 77685PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Per curiam
Claimant, Owen K. Woodard, appeals from an order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. We dismiss the appeal for substantial failure to comply with Rule 84.04.
Claimant appeals to this court pro se. Pro se appellants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with Supreme Court rules, including Rule 84.04, which sets out the requirements for appellate briefs. Coyne v. Coyne, 17 S.W.3d 904, 905-06, 907 (Mo.App.2000).
Claimant has failed to comply with Rule 84.04 so substantially that his appeal is unreviewable. The brief…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thummel v. KingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1978
- Kent v. Charlie Chicken, II, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1998
- Coyne v. CoyneMissouri Court of Appeals · 2000
- Estate of Dean v. MorrisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
- Deloch v. HughesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995
3Cited by10 opinions
- Davis v. ColemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
- Waller v. ShippeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 2008
- Donovan v. Temporary HelpMissouri Court of Appeals · 2001
- Green Valley Seed, Inc. v. PlengeMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
- Watson-Tate v. St. Louis School DistrictMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.