Mitchell v. Briscoe
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
GRIMM, Judge.
Plaintiffs petition for damages for legal malpractice was dismissed pursuant to defendant’s motion to dismiss.* Plaintiffs appeal pro se. Their appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04.
Rule 84.04(c) requires that plaintiffs’ brief contain “a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Rule 84.04(h) requires that the statement of facts have “specific page references to the legal file or the transcript.”
Plaintiffs’ three page statement of facts does not mention the malpractice action. Rather, it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Johnson v. St. Mary's Health CenterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
- Roden v. TofleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
- Stone v. MitchellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
3Cited by3 opinions
- Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission v. TaylorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
- Hampton v. FrancisMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
- National Home Insurance Co. v. NguyenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996