Dilworth v. City of Berkeley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dilworth v. City of Berkeley

302 S.W.3d 157, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 2009 WL 4279710

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 2009

DocketED 92697, ED 93319

StatusPublished

This text of 302 S.W.3d 157 (Dilworth v. City of Berkeley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dilworth v. City of Berkeley, 302 S.W.3d 157, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 2009 WL 4279710 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, the plaintiff, City of Ferguson police officer Harry Dil-worth, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing, on the basis of sovereign immunity, his claim for negligence against the defendants, the City of Berkeley and Berkeley police officer Gary Eaves. 1 Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

1

. On the parties' stipulation, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against Eaves for unlawful seizure (count II) and his claim against the City and Eaves for strict liability (count III). Because the trial court has disposed of all issues and parties in the case, leaving nothing for future determination, its dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence claim (count I) constitutes a final, appealable judgment. Bannister v. Pulaski Fin. Corp., 255 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). The dismissal renders moot the jurisdictional issue of the propriety of the trial court’s earlier Rule 74.01(b) certification.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, the plaintiff, City of Ferguson police officer Harry Dil-worth, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing, on the basis of sovereign immunity, his claim for negligence against the defendants, the City of Berkeley and Berkeley police officer Gary Eaves. 1 Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

1

. On the parties' stipulation, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against Eaves for unlawful seizure (count II) and his claim against the City and Eaves for strict liability (count III). Because the trial court has disposed of all issues and parties in the case, leaving nothing for future determination, its dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence claim (count I) constitutes a final, appealable judgment. Bannister v. Pulaski Fin. Corp., 255 S.W.3d 538, 541 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). The dismissal renders moot the jurisdictional issue of the propriety of the trial court’s earlier Rule 74.01(b) certification.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 S.W.3d 157, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 2009 WL 4279710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dilworth-v-city-of-berkeley-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack