Legal Opinion
Studt v. Fastenal Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided November 16, 2010No. ED 94439PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NANNETTE A. BAKER, Judge.
Introduction
- Michael Studt (“Claimant”) appeals pro se from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) finding him disqualified for unemployment benefits. We must dismiss Claimant’s appeal because his brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04. 1
Discussion
We hold pro se appellants to the same standards as licensed attorneys regarding the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04. Moseley v. Grundy County Dist. R-V Sch., 319 S.W.3d 510, 511 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). We apply this principle not due to a lack of sympathy for a pro se…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hankins v. RELIANCE AUTOMOTIVE, INC.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2010
- Moseley v. Grundy County District R-V SchoolMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
- Hardnett v. Division of Employment SecurityMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
3Cited by6 opinions
- Chastain v. KANSAS CITY MISSOURI CITY CLERKMissouri Court of Appeals · 2011
- Smith v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
- Fazio v. WolfMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
- Arthur Jefferson , II v. Missouri Department of Social ServicesMissouri Court of Appeals · 2022
- John J. Smith v. Lora J. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.