Potts v. St. Johns Lutheran Church

Missouri Court of Appeals

Potts v. St. Johns Lutheran Church

964 S.W.2d 244, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 627, 1998 WL 141800

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1998

DocketNo. 72393

StatusPublished

This text of 964 S.W.2d 244 (Potts v. St. Johns Lutheran Church) 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

Potts v. St. Johns Lutheran Church, 964 S.W.2d 244, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 627, 1998 WL 141800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew G. Potts appeals the trial court’s “Court Memorandum” granting summary judgment in favor of St. John’s Lutheran Church in his personal injury action. We must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the “Court Memorandum” does not meet the requirements of Rule 74.01(a) and the dictates of Linzenni v. Hoffman, 937 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Mo. banc 1997).

The rules of our court mandate that a judgment must be: (1) in writing, (2) signed [245]*245by the judge, (3) denominated “judgment,” and (4) filed. Rule 74.01(a). In the present case, the “Court Memorandum” is not denominated as a judgment. The requirements of Rule 74.01(a) are not formalities, but establish a “bright line” test as to when a writing establishes an appealable judgment. Chambers v. Easter Fence Co., Inc., 943 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). A prerequisite toappellate review is a final judgment. Committee for Educ. Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. banc 1994). Since a final judgment has not been entered in this case, the appeal is dismissed as premature for lack of a final judgment.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew G. Potts appeals the trial court’s “Court Memorandum” granting summary judgment in favor of St. John’s Lutheran Church in his personal injury action. We must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the “Court Memorandum” does not meet the requirements of Rule 74.01(a) and the dictates of Linzenni v. Hoffman, 937 S.W.2d 723, 726 (Mo. banc 1997).

The rules of our court mandate that a judgment must be: (1) in writing, (2) signed [245]*245by the judge, (3) denominated “judgment,” and (4) filed. Rule 74.01(a). In the present case, the “Court Memorandum” is not denominated as a judgment. The requirements of Rule 74.01(a) are not formalities, but establish a “bright line” test as to when a writing establishes an appealable judgment. Chambers v. Easter Fence Co., Inc., 943 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). A prerequisite toappellate review is a final judgment. Committee for Educ. Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. banc 1994). Since a final judgment has not been entered in this case, the appeal is dismissed as premature for lack of a final judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

964 S.W.2d 244, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 627, 1998 WL 141800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potts-v-st-johns-lutheran-church-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack