Vince Manzer and Margaret Manzer, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Jorge M. Sanchez, Manzer, Sanchez & Associates, Inc., Dan Ising and Robert McIntyre, Defendants/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: Vince Manzer and Margaret Manzer, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Jorge M. Sanchez, Manzer, Sanchez & Associates, Inc., Dan Ising and Robert McIntyre, Defendants/Respondents. Case Number: 71908 Handdown Date: 04/21/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Patrick Clifford Counsel for Appellant: Michael Becker Counsel for Respondent: Frank Susman and Kenneth B. Newman Opinion Summary: Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's dismissal of their shareholder derivative suit with prejudice. DISMISSED. Division Two holds: The appeal is dismissed because the ruling from which plaintiffs appeal is not a judgment as defined by Rule 74.01(a). Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan, C.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur. Opinion: Plaintiffs Vince and Margaret Manzer appeal from the trial court's order dismissing their shareholder derivative lawsuit with prejudice. Although not raised by the parties, we must determine sua sponte whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the present appeal. McKean v. St. Louis County, 936 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Only rulings denominated as "judgments" are final and appealable. Rule 74.01(a) provides: "Judgment" as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment is rendered when entered. 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. (emphasis added); see also City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997). After carefully searching the record, we find that the order fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 74.01(a). Although signed by the trial judge, the order was not denominated a "judgment." Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 852-53. So ordered. 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.