Leonard O. LaRue, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Janette Lohman, Director, Missouri Department 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 Eastern District Case Style: Leonard O. LaRue, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Janette Lohman, Director, Missouri Department of Revenue, Respondent. Case Number: 71802 Handdown Date: 11/25/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Lincoln County, Hon. Patrick S. Flynn Counsel for Appellant: Lee R. Elliott Counsel for Respondent: Julia Hosmer Opinion Summary: Leonard O. LaRue ("driver") appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Lincoln County dismissing his cause of action against the respondent, the Director of Revenue ("Director"). Driver petitioned the trial court for limited driving privileges following the revocation of his driving privileges for five years for having twice been convicted of an alcohol-related driving offense within a five-year period. DISMISSED. Northern Division holds: The Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction because the trial court's docket entry dismissing driver's petition is not a final judgment in that it nowhere denominates itself as a "judgment." Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Reinhard, P.J., Ahrens and Rhodes Russell, JJ., concur. Opinion: Leonard O. LaRue ("driver") appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Lincoln County dismissing his cause of action against the respondent, the Director of Revenue ("Director"). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Director revoked driver's driving privileges under section 302.060(10) RSMo 1994(FN1) for five years effective
November 16, 1993, for having twice been convicted of an alcohol-related driving offense within a five-year period. Driver was barred from obtaining a limited driving privilege under section 302.309.3(6)(b) until he had served the first two years of that revocation. In July 1996, following the expiration of that period of disqualification, driver filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County for limited driving privileges. On November 13, 1996, the trial court made a docket entry dismissing the petition. This appeal followed. Director asserts that we have no jurisdiction in this case because the trial court's docket entry dismissing driver's petition is not a final judgment. This court has an affirmative duty to examine the propriety of its jurisdiction in every case. Hertlein v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, 820 S.W.2d 109, 110 (Mo.App. 1991). A prerequisite to appellate review is that there be a final judgment. Boyles v. Knowles, 905 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Mo. banc 1995). If the order of the trial court was not a final judgment, we lack jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Id. The Missouri Supreme Court recently explained in City of St. Louis v. Hughes, No. 79514, slip opinion (Mo. banc Aug. 19, 1997), that Rule 74.01(a) defines what constitutes a judgment. The rule, which was amended in 1995, states "[a] judgment is entered when a writing signed by the judge and denominated 'judgment' is filed. The judgment may be a separate document or included on the docket sheet of the case." Rule 74.01(a). In Hughes, the Supreme Court explained that the new Rule 74.01(a) clarifies what constitutes a judgment by establishing a 'bright line" test. Hughes, at
- Thus, the written judgment must be signed by the judge and must be designated a "judgment," although the
designation "judgment" may appear at the top of the writing, within the body of the writing, or in the entry on the docket sheet. Id. The order appealed from herein appears in an entry on the docket sheet dated November 13, 1996. The entry, signed by the trial court, nowhere denominates itself as a "judgment." It is therefore not a final appealable judgment. Finding ourselves without jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. Footnotes: FN1. All references are to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise indicated. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450