TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Sikeston v. Missouri Utilities Co.

CITY OF SIKESTON, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation v. MISSOURI UTILITIES COMPANY, a corporation

City of Sikeston v. Mo. Utils. Co., 526 S.W.2d 401 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 4, 1975
Docket
No. 9543
Judges
Because, Flanigan, Hogan
Citations
526 S.W.2d 4011975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1790

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, City of Sikeston, brought suit against the respondent, Missouri Utilities Company, seeking to enjoin the respondent from extending its electric service into a new addition to the City of Sikeston. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition. After a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, the following docket entry was made by the trial judge: “Deft’s Motion to Dismiss taken up, considered, & sustained.” A reproduced copy of the docket sheet is attached to the transcript. The last line in the transcript states: “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is sustained.” This would appear to be a paraphrase by the reporter of the docket entry. Whether it is a separate entry or a paraphrase of a docket entry is of no significance.

The right of appeal is statutory, and the relevant portion of Section 512.020, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., provides that appeal may be taken only by a party aggrieved by “any final judgment in the case.” This court has no jurisdiction unless the above quoted entries constitute an appealable judgment. If not, this court is required to dismiss the appeal even though the issue has not been raised by the parties.

This court has been faced with similar entries in three recent decisions. After carefully reviewing the applicable statutes, rules and authorities, we found the entries not to be final judgments and, therefore, not appealable. State v. Henderson, 493 S.W.2d 31 (Mo.App.1973); Williams v. Williams, 480 S.W.2d 525 (Mo.App.1972), and Herndon v. Ford, 470 S.W.2d 168 (Mo.App.1971). What was said in the above three cases is equally applicable here, and it would serve no useful purpose to reiterate.

We hold that neither of the entries, whether in the nature of a docket entry or *402 a separate entry, constitutes a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. We have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. Until a proper judgment has been entered, there is nothing from which an appeal may be taken.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

All concur.

HOGAN, J., not sitting. FLANIGAN, J., not participating because not a member of this Court at the time the cause was submitted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 11977: 11982: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kipper v. Vokolek546 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
  2. Cochran v. DeShazo538 S.W.2d 598 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)
  3. Stuckey v. Stuckey628 S.W.2d 406 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Stuckey v. Stuckey628 S.W.2d 406 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)
  2. Kipper v. Vokolek546 S.W.2d 521 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
  3. Cochran v. DeShazo538 S.W.2d 598 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Williams v. Williams, 480 S.W.2d 525 (Mo. Ct. App. 1972) 18
Herndon v. Ford, 470 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971) 7
State v. Henderson, 493 S.W.2d 31 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list