From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Satterlee v. U.S.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two
Sep 24, 1993
862 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)

Opinion

Nos. 18639 to 18641.

September 7, 1993. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied September 24, 1993.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, DOUGLAS COUNTY, ALBERT F. TURNER, J.

Ronald L. Satterlee, pro se.

Gary R. Allen, William S. Estabrook, Janet A. Bradley, John T. McGuire, Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, DC (Michael A. Jones, U.S. Atty., Springfield, of counsel), for U.S.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Carole Lewis Iles, Gretchen Garrison Hunter, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Michael L. Paup, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for State of MO.

Daniel P. Wade, Pros. Atty., Douglas County, Ava, for Douglas County.


Appellant filed three separate actions seeking "declaratory judgment". The trial court dismissed each petition "for failure to state a cause of action". Appellant had filed a separate brief in each of these causes and upon submission the causes were consolidated.

Appellant's briefs fall well short of complying with Rule 84.04 which recites the form and content necessary for a brief in this court. Neither the statement of facts, points relied on, nor argument comply with Rule 84.04. By not substantially complying with Rule 84.04, appellant preserves nothing for appellate review. Simpson v. Galena R-2 School Dist., 809 S.W.2d 457 (Mo.App. 1991); Federbush v. Federbush, 667 S.W.2d 457, 458 (Mo.App. 1984); Pillow v. Sayad, 655 S.W.2d 816 (Mo.App. 1983).

All parties, whether or not represented by an attorney, are bound by the same rules of procedure. Johnson v. St. Mary's Health Center, 738 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Mo.App. 1987). When an appellant's brief fails to identify wherein and why the trial court erred, plain error review under Rule 84.13(c) is not appropriate. Arenson v. Arenson, 787 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.App. 1990). It is not the function of this court to search the record to identify possible errors and to research issues so revealed. Id. Appellant's briefs fail to preserve anything for appellate review.

All pending motions are now denied as moot. The appeals are dismissed.

All concur.


Summaries of

Satterlee v. U.S.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two
Sep 24, 1993
862 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)
Case details for

Satterlee v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:RONALD L. SATTERLEE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two

Date published: Sep 24, 1993

Citations

862 S.W.2d 365 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Satterlee v. County of Douglas Assessor

" It is not the function of this court to search the record to identify possible errors and to research…

Rogers v. Rogers

Saunder-Thalden and Assoc. v. Thomas Berkeley Consulting Engineer, Inc., 825 S.W.2d 385, 387 (Mo. App. 1992).…