OTT LAW

MARY ANN JENNINGS, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Respondent

Decision date: December 27, 2011SD31218

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

1

MARY ANN JENNINGS, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SD31218 ) THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF ) Filed: December 27, 2011 MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY, ) ) Defendant-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Honorable Daniel W. Imhof, Associate Circuit Judge

Before Barney, J., Rahmeyer, J., and Scott, J. DISMISSED

PER CURIAM. Mary Ann Jennings ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's order and judgment sustaining The Board of Curators of Missouri State University's ("Respondent's") motion to dismiss her two-count petition for breach of fair dealing and for declaratory judgment. The trial court sustained Respondent's Motion to Dismiss in an Order and Judgment, but did not indicate if the dismissal was granted with or without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

2

We must first determine, sua sponte, whether the dismissal order is a final judgment from which Appellant may appeal. Atkins v. Jester, 309 S.W.3d 418, 422 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). If the appeal is found to be premature, it must be dismissed. Id. Rule 67.03 1 governs involuntary dismissals and states, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny involuntary dismissal shall be without prejudice unless the court in its order for dismissal shall otherwise specify." Rule 67.03. The order in the instant case did not indicate whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. "The general rule is that a dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment and, therefore, is not appealable." Chromalloy Am. Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co., 955 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 1997). As this Court stated in Atkins: To qualify as a final, appealable judgment, the dismissal order must fall within a limited exception to the general rule governing dismissals. The applicable general rule is that "[a] dismissal failing to indicate that it is with prejudice is deemed to be without prejudice." The usual means of specifying that a dismissal is being made "with prejudice" is to use those words. Under this bright-line interpretation of Rule 67.03, the dismissal order would be deemed a dismissal without prejudice. "In a case of a dismissal without prejudice, a plaintiff typically can cure the dismissal by filing another suit in the same court; hence, a dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal."

Atkins, 309 S.W.3d at 422-23 (internal citations omitted). 2

Because the trial court's dismissal of Appellant's petition does not constitute a final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal. Attorney for Appellant -- George S. Smith Attorney for Respondent-- Ian P. Cooper, Amy E. Clendennen

1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2011), unless otherwise specified.

2 Our holding does not address the merits of Appellant's points.

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

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-lawper_curiam3,374 words

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-lawper_curiam1,516 words

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-lawper_curiam3,993 words

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,603 words