OTT LAW

Jerry D. Smith, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

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.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: Jerry D. Smith, Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, Respondent. Case Number: 54081 Handdown Date: 01/20/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Holt County, Hon. William S. Richards Counsel for Appellant: Richard White Counsel for Respondent: Charles Gooch Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Paul M. Spinden, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Stith and Smith, JJ., concur. Opinion: Jerry D. Smith appeals the circuit court=s ruling that the decision of the director of the Department of Revenue to suspend Smith=s driving license for 60 days because of excessive points should not be set aside. The director decided that Smith had accumulated more than eight points within 18 months and suspended Smith=s license pursuant to ' 302.304.3, RSMo 1997 Supp.(FN1) The director contends that we should dismiss Smith=s appeal because the circuit court did not enter a judgment which satisfied Rule 74.01. On March 4, 1997, the circuit court entered on its docket sheet for Smith=s case: ACause taken up. Motion to Set aside Suspension denied. Motion for limited driving privileges in Commercial Vehicle denied. Clerk to notify attorneys by copy of docket entry.@ We agree that this was not a Ajudgment@ which satisfied Rule 74.01(a). In City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997), the Supreme Court declared that the rule imposes Aan express requirement that the document or docket notation be >denominated "judgment@.=@ The court interpreted its

rule to require use of the word Ajudgment:@(FN2) [T]he written judgment . . . must be designated a Ajudgment.@ Whether the designation "judgment@ appears as a heading at the top of the writing, within the body of the writing in some other manner, or in the entry on the docket sheet, it must be clear from the writing that the document or entry is being Acalled@ a Ajudgment@ by the trial court. Id. Because the circuit court in Hughes did not denominate its decision a Ajudgment,@ the Supreme Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it. Nothing in the circuit court=s docket entry for Smith=s case denominated its decision a judgment. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider Smith=s appeal and therefore dismiss it. Footnotes: FN1. That statute says, AThe director shall suspend the license and driving privileges of any person whose driving record shows the driver has accumulated eight points in eighteen months.@ FN2. The Supreme Court warned, however, A[d]epending upon the text, mere use of the word"judgment@ in the body of the writing or docket entry may not suffice.@ Id. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions

In re: Brian Todd Goldstein, Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101182

dismissed

The Missouri Supreme Court found that attorney Brian Todd Goldstein violated professional conduct rules by mishandling client funds and engaging in dishonest conduct, including taking clients without informing his law firm, misrepresenting trust account practices, and misappropriating over $585,000 from more than 100 clients. The Court ordered Goldstein disbarred based on violations of rules governing safekeeping of property and dishonest conduct.

administrativeper_curiam2,484 words

In re: Mark W. Arensberg, Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 13, 2026#SC101157

modified

Attorney Arensberg was disciplined for knowingly drafting fraudulent loan documents to diminish a client's son's marital estate during divorce proceedings. Rather than the agreed-upon reprimand, the court imposed an indefinite suspension with a six-month waiting period for reinstatement, stayed pending successful completion of one-year probation.

administrativeper_curiam3,367 words

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services vs. Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#WD87223

affirmed
administrativemajority10,025 words

Motors Insurance Corporation vs. Autobot Towing, LLC(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictJuly 8, 2025#WD87590

affirmed
administrativemajority4,043 words

JAMES SANCHEZ, in his capacity as President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, KEITH ATCHISON, in his capacity as Vice-President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, and QUINTON TILLMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMay 28, 2025#SD38656

affirmed
administrativemajority2,960 words