William R. Prickett, Respondent, v. Lucy Lee Hospital, Inc., Appellant.
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 Southern District Case Style: William R. Prickett, Respondent, v. Lucy Lee Hospital, Inc., Appellant. Case Number: 21949 Handdown Date: 06/08/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Stoddard County, Hon. Stephen R. Sharp Counsel for Appellant: Toni H. Blackwood and Jeffrey D. Hanslick Counsel for Respondent: Dennis P. Wilson Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: John C. Crow, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Garrison, P.J., and Prewitt, J., concur. Opinion: Appellant's brief informs us that this appeal is from an "order" of the Circuit Court of Stoddard County. The index to the legal file presented by Appellant lists the "Court's Judgment" as item "4." At a location immediately following tab "4" in the legal file, we find an unsigned, one-page document that appears to be a memorandum from the court clerk to the lawyers for the parties. The document reads, in pertinent part: "On the 15th day of October, 1997, the Judge of this Court made the following Order: Parties appear through counsel. The Court having considered the matter, now denies defendant's motion to stay proceedings." At another location in the legal file, we find an entry on the trial court's docket sheet dated "10 15 97." It is identical to the second paragraph of the excerpt from document "4," set forth above. The docket entry, like document "4," is unsigned. Rule 74.01, Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure (1997), the version in effect October 15, 1997,(FN1) reads,
in pertinent part: "(a) Included Matters. '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." Neither document "4" nor the docket entry satisfies Rule 74.01(a). Neither is "signed by the judge,"(FN2) and neither is denominated "judgment." Because of those flaws, neither is appealable. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 852-53 (Mo. banc 1997). This court, mindful of its duty to determine appealability sua sponte, Committee for Educational Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 450[1] (Mo. banc 1994), must dismiss this appeal. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 852-53. Appeal dismissed. Footnotes: FN1. A new version of Rule 74.01 will take effect July 1, 1998. See: Missouri Court Rules, Vol. I, pp. 311-12 (West 1998). FN2. In Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349[1] (Mo.App. S.D. 1996), this court held a judge's handwritten initials satisfy the requirement of Rule 74.01(a) that the judgment be "signed by the judge." 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.