 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Avis Rent-A-Car Systems2/24/2004
Independence Tax Increment Finance Comm'n , 919 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); In re Marriage of Kempf , 825 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992)).
None of the ten points relied on in Howard's brief follow the form suggested in Rule 84.04(d)(2) in any respect. Every point makes a bare allegation of error, which does not state concisely the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error, or explain in summary fashion why, in the context of this case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. See Rule 84.04(d)(2). Five of Howard's ten points on appeal do not contain any reference to the legal file or transcript, nor have many of his points been preserved for appeal.
Because of its substantial failure to comply with Rule 84.04, this brief preserves nothing for review and is inadequate to invoke the jurisdiction of this court. Davis v. Coleman , 93 S.W.3d 742, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). The brief's deficiencies would require this Court to ferret out the facts, reconstruct the points and issues and decipher the arguments to determine whether Howard is entitled to relief. This Court is not required and should not become an advocate for Howard in this way. Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978).
Howard's appeal is dismissed.
|