Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, No. WD
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | MANFORD |
| Citation | 696 S.W.2d 844 |
| Parties | CITIZENS ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellant, v. The Honorable J. William CAMPBELL, Commissioner, Administrative Hearing Commission, and Paul S. McNeill, Jr., Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Respondents. 36387. |
| Decision Date | 16 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. WD |
Page 844
v.
The Honorable J. William CAMPBELL, Commissioner,
Administrative Hearing Commission, and Paul S.
McNeill, Jr., Director of Revenue, State
of Missouri, Respondents.
Western District.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to
Supreme Court Overruled and
Denied Aug. 27, 1985.
John C. Hannegan, Tracy Mathis and Allen D. Kircher of Hannegan, Stokes, Moerschel & Weber, P.C., St. Charles, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.
Before MANFORD, P.J., and PRITCHARD, and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.
MANFORD, Presiding Judge.
This appeal follows an order dismissing appellant's claimed refund for payment of franchise taxes. The appeal is dismissed.
Appellant filed documents, along with a letter requesting a hearing, before the Missouri Director of Revenue upon its application for the refund of franchise tax payments for the years 1977-1983. In addition to its application, the documents included copies of franchise tax payment protests. The Director received these documents on June 5, 1983. On June 25, 1984, the Director mailed five documents to appellant,
Page 845
each of which were entitled, "Trial Decisions of the Director of Revenue" and each of which denied appellant's refund claim for each year from 1977-1983.On July 16, 1984, appellant filed a "complaint" with the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission seeking review of the Director's decision. On August 10, 1984, the Director filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that appellant's claims were untimely filed and hence to be denied pursuant to § 136.035, RSMo 1978. After appellant had filed suggestions in opposition, respondent, J. William Campbell, Commissioner, entered an order dismissing appellant's complaint. This appeal followed.
While neither point raised by appellant is reached due to the particular disposition of this appeal, both are set forth in summary, as they illustrate the basis of the dismissal of this appeal. Appellant charged that the order of dismissal was in error because (1) appellant was denied a hearing pursuant to § 621.050, RSMo Supp.1984, and (2) by the order of dismissal, appellant was denied its right of due process to prove it is exempt from assessment of franchise taxes and that it paid such taxes involuntarily and under duress.
For purposes herein, what the above alleged errors reveal is that there remains issues yet unresolved. Thus, the judgment in the form of an order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlas Sec. Services, Inc. v. Git-N-Go, Inc., GIT-N-G
...certain limited circumstances not relevant here. Hill v. Boles, 583 S.W.2d 141, 147 (Mo. banc 1979); Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Mo.App.1985). If a trial court sustains a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the judgment rendered may be a final appealable judgmen......
-
Sloan v. Board of Review of Indus. Com'n of Utah, No. 890427-CA
...to determine if the utility company's employment practices were justified was not a final order.); Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Mo.Ct.App.1985) (An agency order which addresses the denial of a refund of franchise taxes for several of the claimed years but fails to ......
-
Okello v. Beebe, No. WD
...In order for a judgment to be final and appealable, it must dispose of all issues and all parties. Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Mo.App.1985). Furthermore, it is the duty of the appellate court to determine, sua sponte, its own jurisdiction, and if a judgment is not......
-
Around the World Importing, Inc. v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, No. 55129
...is a jurisdictional prerequisite, we must dismiss an appeal from a judgment that is not final. Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844, 845 For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must dispose of all parties and all issues in the case, leaving nothing for future determination......
-
Atlas Sec. Services, Inc. v. Git-N-Go, Inc., GIT-N-G
...certain limited circumstances not relevant here. Hill v. Boles, 583 S.W.2d 141, 147 (Mo. banc 1979); Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Mo.App.1985). If a trial court sustains a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the judgment rendered may be a final appealable judgmen......
-
Sloan v. Board of Review of Indus. Com'n of Utah, No. 890427-CA
...to determine if the utility company's employment practices were justified was not a final order.); Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Mo.Ct.App.1985) (An agency order which addresses the denial of a refund of franchise taxes for several of the claimed years but fails to ......
-
Okello v. Beebe, No. WD
...In order for a judgment to be final and appealable, it must dispose of all issues and all parties. Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844, 845 (Mo.App.1985). Furthermore, it is the duty of the appellate court to determine, sua sponte, its own jurisdiction, and if a judgment is not......
-
Around the World Importing, Inc. v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Ass'n, No. 55129
...is a jurisdictional prerequisite, we must dismiss an appeal from a judgment that is not final. Citizens Elec. Corp. v. Campbell, 696 S.W.2d 844, 845 For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must dispose of all parties and all issues in the case, leaving nothing for future determination......