Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Amoso Realty, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Monique Milton, Defendant/Respondent, and Bryce Weathers, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant., 513 S.W.3d 373 (2016)

Citation
Amoso Realty, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Monique Milton, Defendant/Respondent, and Bryce Weathers, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant., 513 S.W.3d 373 (2016)
Parent Document
Amoso Realty, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Monique Milton, Defendant/Respondent, and Bryce Weathers, Proposed Intervenor/Appellant., 513 S.W.3d 373 (2016)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
2016-12-27

Other Sections in This Document (38)

Full Text

697 chars
fn §Ll, a written trial-court order did not include the word “judgment,” although the
docket entry stated, “Judgment Granted.” 101 S.W.3d at 340. This Court held that the written
order did not constitute a final judgment because the written order was not denominated a
“judgment.” I_d_. We further explained that the docket entry did not constitute a “judgment”
because it lacked another requirement of Rule 74.0i(a): it was not signed or initiated by the
judge. I_d_. We held that the two documents (the written order and the docket entry) could not
combine to create a final appealable judgment, even though the docket entry clearly referred to the written order. §§ § We dismissed the appeal. §