South County Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Inc. v. Pona

Missouri Court of Appeals

South County Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Inc. v. Pona

149 S.W.3d 545, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1721, 2004 WL 2521181

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

DocketED 84700

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 149 S.W.3d 545 (South County Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Inc. v. Pona) 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

South County Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Inc. v. Pona, 149 S.W.3d 545, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1721, 2004 WL 2521181 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

*546 GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Chief Judge.

South County Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Inc. (Appellant) filed a petition against Marilyn Pona (Respondent) for breach of contract. The trial court entered an order granting Respondent’s motion and dismissing Appellant’s petition with prejudice. Appellant filed this appeal.

This Court must determine its jurisdiction sua sponte. Bryant v. City of University City, 105 S.W.3d 855, 856 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). If this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it should be dismissed. Id. In a civil case, a judgment must be expressly denominated “judgment” to be appealable. Rule 74.01(a); Peet v. Randolph, 103 S.W.3d 872, 875 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). In designating the writing a “judgment,” it must be clear from the writing that the trial court is calling the document or docket sheet entry a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997).

Here, the order dismissing Appellant’s petition with prejudice is not denominated a judgment. We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed and providing Appellant an opportunity to ask the circuit court to enter a judgment that complied with Rule 74.01(a). Appellant has failed to respond to our order and has not filed a judgment complying with Rule 74.01(a).

The requirement that a trial court must denominate its final ruling as a “judgment” is not a mere formality, but rather establishes a bright line test as to when a writing is a judgment. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 853; See also, Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003). The order dismissing Appellant’s petition must be denominated a judgment or this Court lacks jurisdiction. Jon E. Fuhrer Co. v. Gerhardt, 955 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo.App. E.D.1997).

We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and GLENN A NORTON, J., concur.

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

*546 GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Chief Judge.

South County Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Inc. (Appellant) filed a petition against Marilyn Pona (Respondent) for breach of contract. The trial court entered an order granting Respondent’s motion and dismissing Appellant’s petition with prejudice. Appellant filed this appeal.

This Court must determine its jurisdiction sua sponte. Bryant v. City of University City, 105 S.W.3d 855, 856 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). If this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it should be dismissed. Id. In a civil case, a judgment must be expressly denominated “judgment” to be appealable. Rule 74.01(a); Peet v. Randolph, 103 S.W.3d 872, 875 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). In designating the writing a “judgment,” it must be clear from the writing that the trial court is calling the document or docket sheet entry a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997).

Here, the order dismissing Appellant’s petition with prejudice is not denominated a judgment. We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed and providing Appellant an opportunity to ask the circuit court to enter a judgment that complied with Rule 74.01(a). Appellant has failed to respond to our order and has not filed a judgment complying with Rule 74.01(a).

The requirement that a trial court must denominate its final ruling as a “judgment” is not a mere formality, but rather establishes a bright line test as to when a writing is a judgment. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 853; See also, Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003). The order dismissing Appellant’s petition must be denominated a judgment or this Court lacks jurisdiction. Jon E. Fuhrer Co. v. Gerhardt, 955 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo.App. E.D.1997).

We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J. and GLENN A NORTON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.W.3d 545, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1721, 2004 WL 2521181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-county-orthopedics-sports-medicine-inc-v-pona-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack