From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SY v. SOW

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Aug 26, 2008
258 S.W.3d 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)

Opinion

No. WD 68235.

May 20, 2008. Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 1, 2008. Application for Transfer Denied August 26, 2008.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Jon R. Gray, J.

Ousmane Sy, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Michael Chester McIntosh, Independence, MO, for respondent.


Ousmane Sy appeals a judgment dissolving his marriage to Hadja Sow. We dismiss his appeal for numerous violations of Rule 84.04. We surmise that Mr. Sy appeals from a dissolution decree because it is attached to his Notice of Appeal. That judgment is never mentioned in his appellate brief, although numerous orders in an order of protection and a domestic violence criminal case are referred to. Although Mr. Sy proceeds without legal representation, he is bound to the same briefing requirements as counsel. C.C.J.K. ex rel Kercher v. Jackson, 11 S.W.3d 110, 111 (Mo.App. 2000). It is not our job to search the record unguided to construct or discover legal arguments for appellant. Grafton v. City of Plattsburg, 167 S.W.3d 731, 733 (Mo.App.W.D. 2005).

The appellate brief contains no jurisdictional statement. Rule 84.04(b). There are no Points Relied On. Rule 84.04(d). There is no table of cases, statutes, or authorities. Rule 84.04(a)(1). In fact, not a single case is cited anywhere in the brief. The other deficiencies in Mr. Sy's brief do not need detailing.

The appeal is dismissed.

HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge, and THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge, concur.


Summaries of

SY v. SOW

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Aug 26, 2008
258 S.W.3d 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)
Case details for

SY v. SOW

Case Details

Full title:Ousmane SY, Appellant, v. Hadja SOW, Respondent

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District

Date published: Aug 26, 2008

Citations

258 S.W.3d 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)

Citing Cases

Yates v. Briggs Stratton

Id. "It is not our job to search the record unguided to construct or discover legal arguments for appellant."…

Rainey v. SSPS, Inc.

Rainey proceeds in this Court pro se. Despite that fact, he is subject to the same procedural rules as…