25 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1906–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Polk v. Essengreen2 sentences2016However, Rule 74.01(b) provides an exception to the finality rule, “permitting a trial court to enter judgment on a single claim when multiple claims are asserted in a single case and certify its judgment as appealable upon an express determination there is ‘no just reason for delay.’” Polk v. Essen, 249 S.W.3d 914, 918 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Davis v. Howe, 144 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004). 2009Rule 74.01(b), however, provides an exception to the finality rule, permitting a trial court to enter judgment on a single claim when multiple claims are asserted in a single case and certify its judgment as appealable upon an express determination there is “no just reason for delay.” Polk v. Essen, 249 S.W.3d 914, 918 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Haley v. City of Linn Creekgreen2 sentences1985Greening v. Klamen, 683 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo.App.1984) citing, Haley v. City of Linn Creek, 583 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Mo.App.1979). 1984Haley v. City of Linn Creek, 583 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Mo.App.1979). | 2 | 2 |
First National Bank of Dieterich v. Pointe Royale Property Owners' Ass'ngreen2 sentences2025Rule 74.01(b) “provides a limited exception to this finality requirement.” Id. 2020Rule 74.01(b) “provides a limited exception to this finality requirement.” Id. | 1 | 5 |
Davis v. Howegreen2 sentences2016However, Rule 74.01(b) provides an exception to the finality rule, “permitting a trial court to enter judgment on a single claim when multiple claims are asserted in a single case and certify its judgment as appealable upon an express determination there is ‘no just reason for delay.’” Polk v. Essen, 249 S.W.3d 914, 918 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Davis v. Howe, 144 S.W.3d 899, 902 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004). 2008Rule 74.01(b), however, provides an exception to the finality rule, permitting a trial court to enter judgment on a single claim when multiple claims are asserted in a single case and certify its judgment as appealable upon an express determination there is “no just reason for delay.” Davis, 144 S.W.3d at 902 ; Albright, 926 S.W.2d at 209 . | 1 | 2 |
Buemi v. Kerckhoffgreen1 sentence2025Where multiple claims are presented in an action, “[t]he rule authorizes the trial court to enter an appealable final judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties in the case and to certify that there is no just reason to delay the appeal of that judgment.” Buemi v. Kerckhoff, 359 S.W.3d 16, 20 (Mo. banc 2011). “[T]he effect of Rule 74.01(b) is to permit severance of any unrelated substantive claim for relief of the parties and to allow appeal of a final judgment on those severed claims.” First Nat’l Bank of Dieterich, 515 S.W.3d at 222 (emphasis and internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Division of Employment Securitygreen1 sentence2025See Citizens for Ground Water Prot., 275 S.W.3d at 352 . | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of J.I.S. v. Waldongreen1 sentence2023As this Court has observed when enforcing other limits on the right to appeal under section 211.261, the General Assembly decides when an appeal can be taken in juvenile proceedings: “The right of appeal is statutory. . . . [T]his Court cannot invade the General Assembly’s province to create a right of appeal where none exists.” J.I.S. v. Waldon, 791 S.W.2d 379, 379 (Mo. banc 1990) (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Committee for Educational Equality v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 451 (Mo. 1994) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Huff v. DEWEY & LEBOEUF, LLPgreen1 sentence2012Rule 74.01(b) permits the circuit court to designate a final judgment “as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.” Upon entering the partial summary judgment in this case, the circuit court expressly invoked Rule 74.01(b) by stating “there is no just cause to delay entering judgment as provided herein on the portion of the action which is disposed of by this judgment.” However, the circuit court’s “certification of a judgment as final is not conclusive.” Huff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP, 340 S.W.3d 623, 6 | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Dolgencorp, Inc.green1 sentence2012Rule 74.01(b) 5 provides an exception to the finality rule in cases “in which more than one claim for relief is presented or when multiple parties are involved.” Davis v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 565, 567 (Mo.App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Doerr v. Teton Transportation, Inc.green1 sentence2010See, e.g., Doerr, 258 S.W.3d at 520-21 ; Braswell, 249 S.W.3d at 297-98 . | 1 | 1 |
Cramer v. Smootgreen1 sentence2010Cramer v. Smoot, 291 S.W.3d 337, 339 (Mo.App.2009); see section 512.020(5). 4 Rule 74.01(b) provides an exception to this finality rule for cases with multiple claims. | 1 | 1 |
Masonic Temple Ass'n v. Compass Square and Star, Inc.green1 sentence2008The purpose of this rule is “to avoid *919 redundant review of multiple appeals based on the same underlying facts and similar legal issues.” Masonic Temple Ass’n v. Compass Square and Star, Inc., 229 S.W.3d 134, 137 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. Pattersongreen1 sentence1999Morris v. Patterson, 549 S.W.2d 613, 614 (Mo.App.1977). *109 While Rule 74.01(b) permits the trial court to decide fewer than all claims, it does not dispense with the finality requirement for the claims adjudged. | 1 | 1 |
Greening v. Klamengreen1 sentence1985Greening v. Klamen, 683 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo.App.1984) citing, Haley v. City of Linn Creek, 583 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Mo.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gibson v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2019Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at 244 ; Crawford, 561 S.W.3d at 466 . 2002Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at 244 ; In re Marriage of Werths, 33 S.W.3d 541 , 542 n. 1 (Mo. banc 2000). | 3 | 1999–2019 |
Crawford v. Distrib. Operations, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at 244 ; Crawford, 561 S.W.3d at 466 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
White v. Anderssen Mobile X-Ray Service
green
1 sentence2018"The 2005 amendments altered neither the Commission's authority to enter temporary or partial awards pursuant to section 287.510 nor appellate jurisdiction pursuant to section 287.495." White v. Anderssen Mobile X-Ray Serv. , 389 S.W.3d 222 , 224 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Rule 74.01(b) permits the circuit court to designate a final judgment “as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.” Upon entering the partial summary judgment in this case, the circuit court expressly invoked Rule 74.01(b) by stating “there is no just cause to delay entering judgment as provided herein on the portion of the action which is disposed of by this judgment.” However, the circuit court’s “certification of a judgment as final is not conclusive.” Huff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP, 340 S.W.3d 623, 6 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Braswell v. Missouri State Highway Patrol
green
1 sentence2010See, e.g., Doerr, 258 S.W.3d at 520-21 ; Braswell, 249 S.W.3d at 297-98 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Albright v. Kelley
green
1 sentence2008Rule 74.01(b), however, provides an exception to the finality rule, permitting a trial court to enter judgment on a single claim when multiple claims are asserted in a single case and certify its judgment as appealable upon an express determination there is “no just reason for delay.” Davis, 144 S.W.3d at 902 ; Albright, 926 S.W.2d at 209 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Nooney v. Nationsbank, N.A.
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In Re the Marriage of Werths
green
1 sentence2002Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at 244 ; In re Marriage of Werths, 33 S.W.3d 541 , 542 n. 1 (Mo. banc 2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Spectrum Cleaning Services Inc. v. Blalack
green
1 sentence2001However, “Rule 74.01(b) provides an exception to the finality rule for cases involving multiple claims, allowing the trial court to enter judgment on less than all claims and certify that there is no just reason for delay.” Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
International Minerals & Chemical Corp. v. Avon Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994This Court concluded that there was ample authority “for defining by rule the scope of the finality requirement so as to include a determination that could be made subject of a separate judgment.” 817 S.W.2d at 906 . 1994This Court concluded that there was ample authority "for defining by rule the scope of the finality requirement so as to include a determination that could be made subject of a separate judgment." 817 S.W.2d at 906 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Field
neutral
2 sentences1911We believe the correct rule to be used in measuring the effect of a former adjudication is stated by the Kansas City Court of Appeals in Paving Company v. Field, 132 Mo. App. 628 , 97 S. W. 179 , as follows: “Where the two actions present the same parties, the same subject- matter and the same claim or demand, a judgment in the first action, if rendered on the merits, constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. ‘It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain 1911We believe the correct rule to be used in measuring the effect of a former adjudication is stated by the Kansas City Court of Appeals in Paving Company v. Field, 132 Mo. App. 628 , 97 S. W. 179 , as follows: “Where the two actions present the same parties, the same subject- matter and the same claim or demand, a judgment in the first action, if rendered on the merits, constitutes an absolute bar to the second action. ‘It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Cromwell v. County of Sac
green
1 sentence1906“It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” [Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 ; Dickey v. Heim, 48 Mo. App. 114 ; Barkhoefer v. Barkhoefer, 93 Mo. App. 373 ; Viertel v. Viertel, 99 Mo. App. 710 ; Ruckman v. Union Railway, 45 Ore. 578 ; Empire State Nail Co. v. American, etc., Co., 74 Fed. 864 ; Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 157 U. S. 683 ; Pe | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Last Chance Mining Co. v. Tyler Mining Co. green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Barkhoefer v. Barkhoefer
neutral
1 sentence1906“It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” [Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 ; Dickey v. Heim, 48 Mo. App. 114 ; Barkhoefer v. Barkhoefer, 93 Mo. App. 373 ; Viertel v. Viertel, 99 Mo. App. 710 ; Ruckman v. Union Railway, 45 Ore. 578 ; Empire State Nail Co. v. American, etc., Co., 74 Fed. 864 ; Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 157 U. S. 683 ; Pe | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Dickey v. Heim
neutral
1 sentence1906“It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” [Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 ; Dickey v. Heim, 48 Mo. App. 114 ; Barkhoefer v. Barkhoefer, 93 Mo. App. 373 ; Viertel v. Viertel, 99 Mo. App. 710 ; Ruckman v. Union Railway, 45 Ore. 578 ; Empire State Nail Co. v. American, etc., Co., 74 Fed. 864 ; Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 157 U. S. 683 ; Pe | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Viertel v. Viertel neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Empire State Nail Co. v. American Solid Leather Button Co. neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Ruckman v. Union Railway Co. green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Des Moines & Fort Dodge Railway Co. v. Bullard neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| Lindemann v. Rusk green | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Sayers v. Auditor General
neutral
1 sentence1906“It is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” [Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351 ; Dickey v. Heim, 48 Mo. App. 114 ; Barkhoefer v. Barkhoefer, 93 Mo. App. 373 ; Viertel v. Viertel, 99 Mo. App. 710 ; Ruckman v. Union Railway, 45 Ore. 578 ; Empire State Nail Co. v. American, etc., Co., 74 Fed. 864 ; Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 157 U. S. 683 ; Pe | 1 | 1906–1906 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.