Ott Law Firm

Barry Brown and Brian Brown, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Brad Moore, Defendant/Respondent.

Decision date: UnknownED81212

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Dismissed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Barry Brown and Brian Brown, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Brad Moore, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: ED81212 Handdown Date: 08/20/2002 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Washington County, Hon. Sandra Martinez Counsel for Appellant: Ryan S. Shaughnessy Counsel for Respondent: Theodore A. Bruce Opinion Summary: Barry Brown and Brian Brown appeal the order dismissing their petition for malicious prosecution. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: The order entered by the trial court was not denominated a "judgment" as required by Rule 74.01(a), and there was no final, appealable judgment sufficient to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan and R. Dowd, Jr., JJ., concur. Opinion: Barry Brown and Brian Brown, the appellants, filed a petition for malicious prosecution against Brad Moore, the respondent, a state highway patrol officer. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. The circuit court entered an order granting the respondent's motion and dismissing the appellants' petition with prejudice. The appellants filed the present appeal, which we dismiss. An aggrieved party may only appeal from a final judgment of the trial court. Section 512.020, RSMo 2000. A judgment is a writing signed by a judge and denominated as a "judgment." Rule 74.01(a); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Moore, 958 S.W.2d 94, 95 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). The designation of "judgment" may occur at the top of the writing, within

the body of the writing, or in a docket-sheet entry, but 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 trial court made a docket entry as follows: Dismiss by Ct w/ Prejudice The Court, after having taken cause under advisement, does grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Clerk to notify. So Ordered! The judge then signed the docket entry. The order does not reflect that the trial court was entering a judgment for purposes of Rule 74.01(a). We issued an order directing appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed, but appellants have failed to respond. We conclude there was no final, appealable judgment and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,374 words
Read opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,516 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,993 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,670 words
Read opinion