essential element claim in Missouri

2014“AS an exception to that rule, ‘Supreme Court Rule 74.01(b) provides that a trial court may enter a judgment on fewer than all claims for relief upon an express determination there is “no just reason for delay.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Davis, 144 S.W.3d at 902 ). “ ‘If the trial court does not either resolve all the issues as to all parties or expressly designate “there is no reason for delay,” the appeal must be dismissed.’ ” Id. (quoting Davis, 144 S.W.3d at 902 ). “‘Damages are an essential element of a claim and must be resolved for a judgment to be final and appealable.’” Green v. Study, 250 S.W

2009See Green v. Study, 250 S.W.3d 799, 802 (Mo.App.

2014“AS an exception to that rule, ‘Supreme Court Rule 74.01(b) provides that a trial court may enter a judgment on fewer than all claims for relief upon an express determination there is “no just reason for delay.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Davis, 144 S.W.3d at 902 ). “ ‘If the trial court does not either resolve all the issues as to all parties or expressly designate “there is no reason for delay,” the appeal must be dismissed.’ ” Id. (quoting Davis, 144 S.W.3d at 902 ). “‘Damages are an essential element of a claim and must be resolved for a judgment to be final and appealable.’” Green v. Study, 250 S.W

2008Although a docket entry dated the day the trial court heard evidence alludes to awards of punitive damages of $3,000 and nominal damages of $1,000, the subsequent “judgment” states no amount of punitive or nominal damages even though it includes a finding that evidence supported an award of punitive dam *802 ages. 3 “Damages are an essential element of a claim and must be resolved for a judgment to be final and appealable.” Gordon v. Babcock, 149 S.W.3d 546, 547 (Mo.App.2004).

1997Cady v. *629 Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 439 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Mo.1969).

1982“The absence of justification is an essential element of the claim ... . ” Cady v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 439 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Mo.1969).

2010Claimant contends that an actual loss of earnings is not an essential element of a claim for permanent partial disability under Wiele, 948 S.W.2d at 148 .

2002"Further, `[a]n actual loss of earnings is not an essential element of a claim for permanent partial disability.'" Rana, 46 S.W.3d at 626 (quoting Wiele, 948 S.W.2d at 148 ).

2006Workers’ compensation awards for [permanent partial disability] are authorized pursuant to [section] 287.190. ‘The reason for an award of permanent partial disability benefits is to compensate an injured party for lost earnings.’ [Permanent partial disability] is defined in [section] 287.190.6 as being permanent in nature and partial in degree. ‘[A]n actual loss of earnings is not an essential element of a claim for permanent partial disability.’ [Permanent partial disability] can be awarded notwithstanding the fact the claimant returns to work, if the claimant’s injury impairs his efficiency

2006Workers’ compensation awards for [permanent partial disability] are authorized pursuant to [section] 287.190. ‘The reason for an award of permanent partial disability benefits is to compensate an injured party for lost earnings.’ [Permanent partial disability] is defined in [section] 287.190.6 as being permanent in nature and partial in degree. ‘[A]n actual loss of earnings is not an essential element of a claim for permanent partial disability.’ [Permanent partial disability] can be awarded notwithstanding the fact the claimant returns to work, if the claimant’s injury impairs his efficiency

2024See id.

2023DeVore v. Vaughn, 504 S.W.3d 176, 182 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (emphasis added).

2015Even if we assume, arguendo, that taking obscene pictures of a child would constitute a violation of one of the predicate criminal statutes identified in section 537.046 (an issue we need not address), “[m]ere speculation [that such pictures might have been taken] does not create a genuine issue of material fact.” Rustco Products Co., 925 S.W.2d at 923i The Doe Family cannot establish an essential element of their claim—that Ratigan took obscene pictures of Doe 413. 23 Hanson, 963 S.W.2d at 4 (holding that an issue of material fact is genuine “only if it is real and substantial; it-may not con

2015Moreover, “[a]s a thi-eshold matter, appellate courts must determine if a controversy is moot.” Dotson v. Kander, 435 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2014) (citing State ex rel.

2015“A final judgment ‘resolves all issues in - a case, leaving nothing for future determination.’ ” Id. (quoting Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at 244 ), “Damages are an essential element of a claim and must be resolved for a judgment to be final and appealable.” Crest Const. II, Inc. v. Hart, 439 S.W.3d 246, 249 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) (internal quotations omitted).

2014See Envirotech, 259 S.W.3d at 586 .

2012Thus, the effect of the Judgment’s dismissal of Watson’s counterclaim for abuse of process “was not to dismiss or bar the claim, but rather to dismiss the [counterclaim ] as it was filed.” Cramer v. Smoot, 291 S.W.3d 337, 340 (Mo.App.

2010Citing Seeley v. Anchor Fence, 96 S.W.3d 809, 819 (Mo.App.

2010Although the Seeley court stated that an actual loss of earnings is not an essential element of a claim for permanent partial disability, the court expressly stated that permanent partial disability benefits were meant “to compensate an injured party for lost earnings.” Seeley, 96 S.W.3d at 819 .

2008See § 425.300 (allowing collection agencies to take an assignment of claims in their own names for the purposes of billing, collection and bringing suit); Midwestern Health Management, Inc. v. Walker, 208 S.W.3d 295, 298 (Mo.App.2006) (when a plaintiff sues on an account accruing to another in his own right, proof of an assignment of the account is essential to recovery).

2007See also, Roy A. Scheperle Const. Co. v. Seiferts, Inc., 687 S.W.2d 222, 223 (Mo.App.

2004Schulze v. Erickson, 17 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Mo.App.

2002Louis, 991 S.W.2d 206, 208 (Mo.App.1999) (performance of conditions precedent is an essential element of a claim for breach of contract).

2001White v. Henderson Implement Co., 879 S.W.2d 575, 577 (Mo.App.

1997Richmeyer v. Sugar Creek Builders, Inc., 856 S.W.2d 382, 384 (Mo.App.1993).