Jurisprudence Wireless Communications, Inc. v. Cybertel Corp.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jurisprudence Wireless Communications, Inc. v. Cybertel Corp.

952 S.W.2d 815, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1746, 1997 WL 612902

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 7, 1997

DocketNo. 71952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 952 S.W.2d 815 (Jurisprudence Wireless Communications, Inc. v. Cybertel Corp.) 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

Jurisprudence Wireless Communications, Inc. v. Cybertel Corp., 952 S.W.2d 815, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1746, 1997 WL 612902 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

GARY M. GAERTNER, Judge.

Appellant, Jurisprudence Wireless Communications, Inc., d/b/a JWC Cellular (“plaintiff”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing its slander claim against respondent, Missouri Wide Cellular and Paging, Inc. (“defendant”), for failure to state a claim.

As an initial matter, this Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised before it. Skaggs v. Skaggs, 938 S.W.2d 302 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). In order to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, the parties must appeal a written decree or order which has been signed by the trial judge and denominated a “judgment.” Rule 74.01(a); City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo.banc 1997). Such designation may appear at the top of the document, in the body of the writing, or in the form of a docket entry. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 853. The record before us lacks any indication the order entered by the trial court was designated a “judgment” as required for appeals purposes. See id. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Based on the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed.

GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI, J., concur.

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

GARY M. GAERTNER, Judge.

Appellant, Jurisprudence Wireless Communications, Inc., d/b/a JWC Cellular (“plaintiff”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing its slander claim against respondent, Missouri Wide Cellular and Paging, Inc. (“defendant”), for failure to state a claim.

As an initial matter, this Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised before it. Skaggs v. Skaggs, 938 S.W.2d 302 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). In order to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, the parties must appeal a written decree or order which has been signed by the trial judge and denominated a “judgment.” Rule 74.01(a); City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo.banc 1997). Such designation may appear at the top of the document, in the body of the writing, or in the form of a docket entry. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 853. The record before us lacks any indication the order entered by the trial court was designated a “judgment” as required for appeals purposes. See id. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Based on the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed.

GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

952 S.W.2d 815, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1746, 1997 WL 612902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jurisprudence-wireless-communications-inc-v-cybertel-corp-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack