Sandra Rhodes, et al., Appellants, v. Westoak Realty, et al., Respondents.
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: Sandra Rhodes, et al., Appellants, v. Westoak Realty, et al., Respondents. Case Number: 72208 Handdown Date: 11/18/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Julian L. Bush Counsel for Appellant: Elbert A. Walton, Jr. Counsel for Respondent: Robert C. Jones, Jr. Opinion Summary: Appellants Sandra Rhodes, Gennean Gillespie, and Otis Beckum appeal the City of St. Louis circuit court's judgment dismissing their petition against respondents Westoak Realty & Investment, Inc. and Robert C. Jones for failure to state a claim. DISMISSED. Division One holds: The record does not indicate the trial court's order was denominated a "judgment" pursuant to Rule 74.01(a). Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction for lack of a final judgment. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, JJ., concur. Opinion: Appellants, Sandra Rhodes, Gennean Gillespie, and Otis Beckum ("plaintiffs"), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis dismissing their petition filed against respondents, Westoak Realty & Investment, Inc., and Robert C. Jones ("defendants"), for failure to state a claim. As an initial matter, this Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised before it.
Skaggs v. Skaggs, 938 S.W.2d 302 (Mo.App.E.D. 1997). In order to invoke this Court's jurisdiction, the parties must appeal a written decree or order which has been signed by the trial judge and denominated a "judgment." Rule 74.01(a); City of St. Louis v. Hughes, No. 79514, Slip Op. at 6 (Mo.banc August 19, 1997). Such designation may appear at the top of the document, in the body of the writing, or in the form of a docket entry. Hughes, Slip Op. at 7. The record before us lacks any indication the order entered by the trial court was designated a "judgment" as required for appeals purposes. See id. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Based on the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
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.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
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.