Sohrab Devitre, Appellant, v. The Orthopedic Center of St. Louis, LLC, and Mitchell B. Rotman, M.D., Respondents.
Decision date: May 5, 2009ED92544
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
SOHRAB DEVITRE, ) No. ED92544 ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of ) St. Louis County vs. ) ) THE ORTHOPEDIC CENTER ) Honorable Barbara W. Wallace OF ST. LOUIS, LLC, and MITCHELL ) B. ROTMAN, M.D., ) ) Defendants/Respondents. ) FILED: May 5, 2009 )
Plaintiff Sohrab Devitre (Appellant) appeals from an order granting the motion to dismiss filed by The Orthopedic Center of St. Louis and Mitchell B. Rotman (Respondents) and dismissing Appellant's cause. As an initial matter, this Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. If we lack jurisdiction, we should dismiss the appeal. Brown v. Missouri Department of Fire Safety, 247 S.W.3d 17, 18 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). To invoke this Court's jurisdiction, parties must appeal an order that has been denominated either a judgment or decree. Rule 74.01(a); Orf v. Orf , 208 S.W.3d 306, 307 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). Rule 74.01(a)'s requirement that a judgment be denominated a judgment or decree "is an attempt to assist the litigants and the appellate courts by clearly distinguishing between when orders and rulings of the trial court are intended to be final and appealable and when the trial court seeks to retain jurisdiction over the
issue." City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997); See also, Lake V. McCollum, 257 S.W.3d 614, 616 (Mo. banc 2008). In designating the writing a judgment or decree, it must be clear from the writing that the trial court is calling the document or docket sheet entry a judgment or decree. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 853. Here, the order granting Respondents' motion to dismiss is not denominated a judgment or decree as required by Rule 74.01(a). We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to our order and has not filed a judgment complying with Rule 74.01(a). The order must be denominated a judgment or decree or this Court lacks jurisdiction. Brooks v. Brooks , 98 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003). We dismiss the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment.
____________________________________ NANNETTE A. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE
PATRICIA L. COHEN, J. and KENNETH M. ROMINES, J., concur
2
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.