Your case is unique, but you are not alone.
About 41,000 new cases are filed in U.S. courts every weekday. Behind each one is a person trying to understand what happens next. Here’s what the public record can tell you about this matter — and about the people deciding it.
Is this judge more likely to rule for the plaintiff or the defendant in cases of this type?
How has your attorney actually performed in front of this judge?
AICasePredict surfaces patterns from public court records. We don’t predict outcomes and we don’t recommend changing your attorney — that’s a conversation for you and them. We just show you what the record already says.
Full Analytics Report
- Complete case narrative
- Judge details and rulings
- Case disposition and outcome
- All docket entries
- Related cases and filings
$20
One-time purchase
Case Information
Filed
2024-02-12
Type
Ap Worker's Compensation
Docket
32 entries
Disposition
dismis
Parties
Plaintiff
Harden, Donald G.
Defendant
Treasurer Of Missouri As Custodian Of The Second Injury Fund|Toepke, Barbara
Lawyers
Docket Entries
- Clerk Remark Mandate and Letter to LIRC mailed June 17, 2024.
- Mandate Sent
- Dismis Ct Ord-Fail Prfct Appl
- Clerk Remark copy of motion ruling mailed to pro se appellant
- Denied Associated Entries: 05/13/2024 - Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC
- Mot for Rehearing/Tran to SC Filed By: DONALD G. HARDEN Associated Entries: 05/21/2024 - Denied
- Clerk Remark copy of Court Order Issued April 30, 2024 mailed to pro se appellant
- Court Order Issued Appellant filed an Appellant's Brief on April 8, 2024, which failed to comply with Supreme Court Rules 84.04 and 84.06 regarding appellate briefs in multiple ways. This court issued an order regarding the deficiencies and directed Appellant to file an amended brief that complied with Rule 84 on or before April 29, 2024. Subsequently, Appellant filed an amended appellant's brief and appendix. Appellant's amended brief still fails to comply with Rule 84. We must hold pro se appellants to the same standards as attorneys and all appellants must comply with the Supreme Court Rules governing the contents of appellate briefs. Covington v. Better Business Bureau, 253 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); see also Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501,505 (Mo. banc 2022). A brief that substantially fails to comply with Rule 84.04 is inadequate and the appeal must be dismissed. Id. Appellant's brief fails to comply. Among other deficiencies, Appellant's brief does not include a fair and concise statement of facts relevant to the question presented in the appeal with citation to specific page references supporting each factual assertion as required by Rule 84.04(c). Appellant's statement of facts also includes argument, which is prohibited by Rule 84.04(c). Appellant does not present a point relied on that complies with Rule 84.04(d), specifically failing to identify the action of the commission being challenged, the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error and why those legal reasons support the claims of reversible error. Further, Appellant does not present argument corresponding to his purported point relied on while referencing the supporting legal authority, as required by Rule 84.04(e). Although an appellate court may excuse technical deficiencies in a brief in order to reach the merits of a case, we will not consider a brief "so deficient that it fails to give notice to this court and to the other parties as to the issue presented on appeal." Lexow, 643 S.W.3d at 505 (quoting J.A.D. v. F.J.D., 978 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Mo. banc 1998)). As a result of Appellant's deficient point relied on and argument, it is difficult for this court to determine his alleged error on appeal. Where this court must guess or infer what Appellant's legal claims are and comb the record on its own to address them, this court is placed in the untenable position of acting as Appellant's advocate. Steele v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 485 S.W.3d 823, 824 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). This we cannot do. On the Court's own motion, the appeal is dismissed for failure to file a brief conforming to the Supreme Court Rules.
- Appendix Filed One paper copy of Appendix received, scanned, and attached. Filed By: DONALD G. HARDEN
- Amended Appellant's Brief One paper copy of Amended Brief received, scanned, and attached. Filed By: DONALD G. HARDEN
- Clerk Remark Copy of Court Order Issued April 8, 2024 mailed to pro se appellant
- Court Order Issued Appellant filed an Appellant's Brief on April 8, 2024. The Appellant's brief fails to comply with Supreme Court Rules 84.04 and 84.06 regarding appellate briefs in at least the following ways: (1) fails to contain a fair and concise statement of facts relevant to the questions presented in the appeal with citation to specific page references to the record on appeal in the statement of facts and without argument, 84.04(c); (2) fails to provide points relied on that specifically identify the action of the commission being challenged, the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error, and why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error with citation to all authorities, not to exceed four, immediately following, 84.04(d)(1) & (5); (3) fails to contain arguments corresponding to the points relied on with reference to legal authority to support the argument, 84.04(e); (4) fails to include an appendix in compliance with Rule 84.04(h). Appellant is granted until April 29, 2024, to file a brief that complies with Rule 84. If Appellant fails to do so, this appeal shall be dismissed.
- Appellant's Brief One paper copy of Brief received, scanned, and attached. Filed By: DONALD G. HARDEN
- Clerk Remark copy of motion ruling list mailed to pro se appellant
- Denied It appears that all "sixty-five page plus" pages of Exhibit 1 are already in the record filed with this Court. Associated Entries: 03/25/2024 - Mot File Suppl Record on Appl
- Mot File Suppl Record on Appl Filed By: DONALD G. HARDEN Associated Entries: 03/26/2024 - Denied +
- Clerk Remark copy of motion ruling list mailed to pro se appellant
- Granted Until April 12, 2024. No further extensions will be granted. Associated Entries: 03/13/2024 - Motion for Extension of Time
- Motion for Extension of Time Filed By: DONALD G. HARDEN Associated Entries: 03/13/2024 - Granted Until +
- Record on Appeal Complete
- Record on Appeal Part 1 of 2 pgs 1-95; Record on Appeal Part 2 of 2 pgs 96-161; Electronic Filing Certificate of Service.
- Clerk Remark ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER MAILED TO KARLA S. HOGG. MAILED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER, REDACTION NOTICE AND LIRC INFO FORM TO DONALD HARDEN APPELLANT PRO SE.
- Dismissal Notice Sent Deficiency Notice Mailed~ Need complete case information sheet~ DUE BY MARCH 13, 2024.
- Acknowledgement Letter Sent
- NOA Filed in Appellate Court
- Filing Fee Paid
Get Free Case Details
Enter your email to receive case information including parties, docket entries, and status updates.
By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy.
Need this case removed? Enter your email above — the confirmation email includes a case removal link.
Legal Analytics Has Been Featured In
