law-pro-se-appeal | common errors in appeals | preservation of error for appellate review | inadequate briefing
failure to cite case law authority | failure to cite to the appellate record |

Though Smith is a pro se litigant, she is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with
applicable substantive laws and rules of procedure.  See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184
(Tex. 1978); LaGoye v. Victoria Wood Condominium Ass'n, 112 S.W.3d 777, 787 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.]
2003, no pet.).  Any other rule would give the pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is
represented by trial counsel.  See Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 184; LaGoye, 112 S.W.3d at 787.
Smith v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 6, 2009)(Frost)
(workers compensation appeal by both sides, compensable injury)
[4]  Although we construe Smith's second issue as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, to the extent
that Smith has presented other issues in her appellate brief, Smith has failed to provide analysis or citations to
the record or legal authorities.  As a result of the inadequate briefing, Smith's remaining issues are waived.  See
Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3d 323, 338 (Tex. App.- Houston [14 Dist.]
2005, no pet.) (holding that, even though courts interpret briefing requirements reasonably and liberally, parties
asserting error on appeal still must put forth some specific argument and analysis citing the record and
authorities in support of the arguments).
[5]  Although Smith presents this argument as part of her fifth issue in her appellate brief, she has waived this
argument because she has failed to adequately brief the issue and has provided no argument, citations to the
record, or any legal authority to support her contention.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); San Saba Energy, L.P.,
171 S.W.3d at 338  

Pro Se Representation
Matt represented himself in the trial court, and he also appears before this Court pro se. Although we liberally
construe pro se pleadings and briefs, we nonetheless require pro se litigants to comply with applicable laws and
rules of procedure. See Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (“pro se litigants are not exempt
from the rules of procedure”); Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). “Having two
sets of rules—a strict set for attorneys and a lenient set for pro se parties—might encourage litigants to discard
their valuable right to the advice and assistance of counsel.” Wheeler, 157 S.W.3d at 444. “Litigants who
represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural rules, or else they would be given an unfair
advantage over litigants represented by counsel.” Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 185; see also Stein v.
Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 481 S.W.2d 436, 439 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (holding that
pro se defendants in tax foreclosure are bound by rules of procedure). Construing his briefing liberally, the issues
Matt presents lack substantive merit.

Gilbert v. HISD (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Sep. 24, 2009)(Massengale)
(pro se appeal, suing or defending suit as next friend of incompetent person, standing to bring appeal,
tax lien foreclosure)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Massengale  
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Bland and Massengale   
01-06-00159-CV  Matt Gilbert v. Houston Independent School District   
Appeal from 270th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Brent Gamble


The trial court's dismissal order was based on Rules 13[1] and 215[2] of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.  
However, in Cantu's two issues, he contends (1) “the evidence does not support dismissal for 'Res Judicata' or
any other reason," and (2) he should “not be sanctioned by TRCP 215, since he did not engage in discovery
abuse."  Cantu fails to acknowledge or base his argument on the correct standard of review.[3]  Cantu's multiple
pro se briefs contain his description of events precipitating this suit, assertions that he complied with discovery
rules, and argument relative to alleged tortuous conduct of Maher and Tollette. His citations to authority pertain
solely to disqualification of counsel.  
FAILURE TO CITE CASE LAW AUTHORITY
An appellant's brief must contain a clear and concise argument with appropriate citations to authority.   Tex. R.
App. P. 38.1(i).  Although we must interpret this requirement liberally, an issue not supported by authority is
waived.  Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. 2004); Nguyen v. Kosnoski,
93 S.W.3d 186, 188 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.).  
TREATMENT OF PRO SEE PARTIES ON APPEAL
Further, it is well established that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must
comply with all applicable rules of procedure.  Valdez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2007, no
pet.).  Accordingly, we hold Cantu waived his issues on appeal by failing to supply this court with a clear and
concise argument and citations to authority.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Cantu v. Maher (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2009)(Seymore) (finding of discovery abuse,  case
groundless and brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment)(motion for Frivolous and Groundless
Appeal and Motion To Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions are overruled)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Charles Seymore    
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore  
14-07-00584-CV  Tony Cantu v. John E. Maher, Thomas Tollett, and Tommy's Seafood Steakhouse   
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: R. Jack Cagle


HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES  | TEXAS CASE LAW |