Gaa v. Edwards

Decision Date29 December 1981
Docket NumberNo. WD,WD
Citation626 S.W.2d 685
PartiesDavid G. GAA, a minor, by his next friend and natural father, Johnny J. Gaa, Johnny J. Gaa, and Kathryn M. Gaa, Appellants, v. Robert C. EDWARDS, Respondent. 32127.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Theodore M. Kranitz, St. Joseph, for appellants.

Larry L. Zahnd, Maryville, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P. J., and SHANGLER and WASSERSTROM, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is dismissed for want of a final judgment.

Plaintiffs, David Gaa, a minor, and Johnny Gaa and Kathryn Gaa, David's parents, filed a six-count petition against defendant Robert C. Edwards in the Circuit Court of Nodaway County.

In Count 1 of plaintiffs' petition, a count in equity, plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain defendant from allowing his dog to roam on plaintiffs' property and to prevent defendant from entering plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs sought $10,000 for damages already incurred.

Counts 2 and 3 allege that on two separate occasions defendant allowed his dog to escape from his control and attack David Gaa. David sought damages in the sum of $10,000 for each attack.

Count 4 claims that defendant, without provocation, assaulted David Gaa. The attack took place on a public road while David was in the company of his mother. David claims $15,000 in actual damages and $15,000 in punitive damages.

Count 5 alleges that defendant, without provocation, assaulted Kathryn Gaa. This attack occurred at the same time as the attack upon David alleged in Count 4. Kathryn sought $15,000 actual damages and $15,000 punitive damages.

Count 6 requests $10,000 actual and $10,000 punitive damages for Johnny Gaa's loss of his wife's and son's services.

In a counterclaim against Kathryn and Johnny, defendant claims $10,000 in actual damages and $40,000 in punitive damages for malicious prosecution. The counterclaim alleges that plaintiffs, without probable cause, induced the prosecuting attorney of Nodaway County to file a criminal information against the defendant, thereby causing the arrest of defendant on a charge of assault in the third degree upon Kathryn and David. The prosecuting attorney later terminated the prosecution against defendant without trial and without conviction.

All claims were tried together. The trial court found for defendant on plaintiffs' equitable claim. The jury returned a verdict for defendant on Count 2, the first dog attack upon David, and on Count 4, defendant's assault on David. The jury returned a verdict for David on Count 3, the second dog attack, awarding him $45.00 in damages.

The jury could not agree to a verdict on Count 5, the assault on Kathryn; Count 6, Johnny's claims for loss of services; nor on defendant's counterclaim for malicious prosecution. The trial court declared a mistrial on the latter three counts. After overruling plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, the trial court entered judgment on the first four counts and designated the judgment final for purposes of appeal. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment entered on the first four counts.

Respondent argues that this court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal since a final judgment disposing of all issues in the case was not entered. Even if neither party...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Atkins v. Jester
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 30 Abril 2010
    ...and leave nothing for the court's later determination." Crow v. Bertram, 681 S.W.2d 6, 7 (Mo. App. E.D.1984) (citing Gaa v. Edwards, 626 S.W.2d 685, 686 (Mo.App. W.D.1981)). We must therefore first determine whether the trial court's Rule 74.01(b) certification was proper and, if not, wheth......
  • Reis v. Peabody Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 8 Octubre 1996
    ...not certified under Rule 74.01(b), this appeal must wait until all the issues are disposed of to become a final judgment. Gaa v. Edwards, 626 S.W.2d 685 (Mo.App.1981). The order denying Peabody's motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation is affirmed. The order denying dismissal and s......
  • Lipton Realty, Inc. v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 46587
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 19 Julio 1983
    ...to consider this appeal. See State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Smith, 303 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Mo.1957); Gaa v. Edwards, 626 S.W.2d 685, 686 (Mo.App.1981). Specifically the issue is whether the trial court's dismissal of Count I disposes of a "claim" and thus satisfies that threshold re......
  • Marriage of Dunn, In re, 45423
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 1 Febrero 1983
    ......." § 452.310.2 RSMo. 1978. "Even if neither party questions our jurisdiction, we must consider it sua sponte." Gaa v. Edwards, 626 S.W.2d 685, 686 (Mo.App.1981); Starnes v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 503 S.W.2d 129, 130-31 The requirement for a verified petition in a dissolution pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT