Goodwin v. Blair

Missouri Court of Appeals

Goodwin v. Blair

838 S.W.2d 523, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 1992 WL 302808

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1992

DocketNo. 61419

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 838 S.W.2d 523 (Goodwin v. Blair) 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

Goodwin v. Blair, 838 S.W.2d 523, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 1992 WL 302808 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMON, Judge.

Arleatha Goodwin, appellant, appeals a judgment in favor of Michael Blair, respondent, in an automobile collision case. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that the appellant failed to prove that respondent was driving the automobile that struck appellant because respondent admitted this fact when he failed to respond to appellant’s request for admissions. Appeal dismissed.

It is our duty to determine sua sponte whether this court has jurisdiction, even though the issue has not been raised by either party. Trotter v. Honest John’s, 765 S.W.2d 735 (Mo.App.1989). The timely filing of an appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 735.

The trial court rendered judgment on December 3, 1991. Appellant filed motion for new trial on December 10, 1991. The trial court denied the motion on December 31, 1991. Judgment became final at that time. Rule 81.05(a). Appellant had ten days after final judgment to file a notice of appeal. Rule 81.04(a). The ten day period includes intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Rule 44.01(a). Ten days after December 31, 1991 is January 10, 1992, a Friday. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on January 16, 1992. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely.

Further, appellant had six months from the date of final judgment to seek a special order from this court permitting a late filing of the notice of appeal. Rule 81.-07(a). She did not seek such an order.

Appeal dismissed.

CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE, J., concur.

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

SIMON, Judge.

Arleatha Goodwin, appellant, appeals a judgment in favor of Michael Blair, respondent, in an automobile collision case. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that the appellant failed to prove that respondent was driving the automobile that struck appellant because respondent admitted this fact when he failed to respond to appellant’s request for admissions. Appeal dismissed.

It is our duty to determine sua sponte whether this court has jurisdiction, even though the issue has not been raised by either party. Trotter v. Honest John’s, 765 S.W.2d 735 (Mo.App.1989). The timely filing of an appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Id. at 735.

The trial court rendered judgment on December 3, 1991. Appellant filed motion for new trial on December 10, 1991. The trial court denied the motion on December 31, 1991. Judgment became final at that time. Rule 81.05(a). Appellant had ten days after final judgment to file a notice of appeal. Rule 81.04(a). The ten day period includes intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Rule 44.01(a). Ten days after December 31, 1991 is January 10, 1992, a Friday. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on January 16, 1992. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely.

Further, appellant had six months from the date of final judgment to seek a special order from this court permitting a late filing of the notice of appeal. Rule 81.-07(a). She did not seek such an order.

Appeal dismissed.

CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

838 S.W.2d 523, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 1992 WL 302808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-blair-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack