Snelling v. BLECKMAN

Missouri Court of Appeals

Snelling v. BLECKMAN

258 S.W.3d 849, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 706, 2008 WL 2098063

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 2008

DocketED 90260

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 258 S.W.3d 849 (Snelling v. BLECKMAN) 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

Snelling v. BLECKMAN, 258 S.W.3d 849, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 706, 2008 WL 2098063 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to file a third amended petition and the trial court’s judgment dismissing his second *850 amended petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We find that the order denying Snelling’s motion to file a third amended complaint was not a final, appealable judgment under Rule 74.01, 1 and therefore we have no jurisdiction to review the order on appeal. Nevertheless, we find that the judgment dismissing Snelling’s second amended petition, which disposed of all claims against all parties, was a final judgment and was not in error. All motions taken with the case are hereby overruled. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All references to "Rule” are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2008).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to file a third amended petition and the trial court’s judgment dismissing his second *850 amended petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We find that the order denying Snelling’s motion to file a third amended complaint was not a final, appealable judgment under Rule 74.01, 1 and therefore we have no jurisdiction to review the order on appeal. Nevertheless, we find that the judgment dismissing Snelling’s second amended petition, which disposed of all claims against all parties, was a final judgment and was not in error. All motions taken with the case are hereby overruled. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All references to "Rule” are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2008).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 S.W.3d 849, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 706, 2008 WL 2098063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snelling-v-bleckman-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack