Rhodes v. Westoak Realty

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rhodes v. Westoak Realty

955 S.W.2d 827, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1990, 1997 WL 713420

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 1997

DocketNo. 72208

StatusPublished

This text of 955 S.W.2d 827 (Rhodes v. Westoak Realty) 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

Rhodes v. Westoak Realty, 955 S.W.2d 827, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1990, 1997 WL 713420 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Sandra Rhodes, Gennean Gillespie, and Otis Beekum (“plaintiffs”), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing their petition filed against respondents, Westoak Realty & Investment, Inc., and Robert C. Jones (“defendants”), 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 laeks 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Sandra Rhodes, Gennean Gillespie, and Otis Beekum (“plaintiffs”), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing their petition filed against respondents, Westoak Realty & Investment, Inc., and Robert C. Jones (“defendants”), 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 laeks 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

955 S.W.2d 827, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1990, 1997 WL 713420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-westoak-realty-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack