Rogers v. PERRY TV, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rogers v. PERRY TV, INC.

239 S.W.3d 713, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1662, 2007 WL 4233460

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

DocketED 89908

StatusPublished

This text of 239 S.W.3d 713 (Rogers v. PERRY TV, INC.) 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

Rogers v. PERRY TV, INC., 239 S.W.3d 713, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1662, 2007 WL 4233460 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PATRICIA L. COHEN, Chief Judge.

Robert G. Rogers (Appellant) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Perry TV, Inc. (Respondent) after a trial de novo on Appellant’s petition for damages. Because Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, the appeal is dismissed.

In civil cases, the notice of appeal is due no later than ten (10) days after the judgment becomes final. Rule 81.04(a). If no authorized after-trial motion is filed, the judgment becomes final at the expiration of thirty (30) days after the entry of judgment. Rule 81.05(a). Here, the court entered its judgment on March 12, 2007. It appears no after-trial motion was filed, and the judgment became final on April 11, 2007. Rule 81.05(a). The notice of appeal was due ten days later, on Monday, April 23, 2007. Rule 81.04(a); Rule 44.01(a). Appellant filed the notice of appeal on May 29, 2007, and it is untimely.

This Court has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider an appeal. State v. Lynch, 192 S.W.3d 502 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). This Court only has jurisdiction if Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal Johnson v. Summers, 596 S.W.2d 78, 79 (Mo.App. S.D.1980). We issued an order to Appellant duuctmg him to show /cause why his apr m should not be dismissed. Appellaih uas failed to file a response. /

The appeal is dismissed for lack of a timely xotiee of appeal./

N. J-KER T. SHAW, NANNETTE A. BA/'iut, JJ., Concur,

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

PATRICIA L. COHEN, Chief Judge.

Robert G. Rogers (Appellant) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Perry TV, Inc. (Respondent) after a trial de novo on Appellant’s petition for damages. Because Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, the appeal is dismissed.

In civil cases, the notice of appeal is due no later than ten (10) days after the judgment becomes final. Rule 81.04(a). If no authorized after-trial motion is filed, the judgment becomes final at the expiration of thirty (30) days after the entry of judgment. Rule 81.05(a). Here, the court entered its judgment on March 12, 2007. It appears no after-trial motion was filed, and the judgment became final on April 11, 2007. Rule 81.05(a). The notice of appeal was due ten days later, on Monday, April 23, 2007. Rule 81.04(a); Rule 44.01(a). Appellant filed the notice of appeal on May 29, 2007, and it is untimely.

This Court has an obligation to determine whether it has jurisdiction to consider an appeal. State v. Lynch, 192 S.W.3d 502 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). This Court only has jurisdiction if Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal Johnson v. Summers, 596 S.W.2d 78, 79 (Mo.App. S.D.1980). We issued an order to Appellant duuctmg him to show /cause why his apr m should not be dismissed. Appellaih uas failed to file a response. /

The appeal is dismissed for lack of a timely xotiee of appeal./

N. J-KER T. SHAW, NANNETTE A. BA/'iut, JJ., Concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.W.3d 713, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1662, 2007 WL 4233460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-perry-tv-inc-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack