McGrath v. McGrath, WD
| Decision Date | 25 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 939 S.W.2d 46 |
| Parties | Barbara A. McGRATH, Respondent, v. Francis Edward McGRATH, Appellant. 52690. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mary Moore, Columbia, for respondent.
Ronald J. Prenger, Jefferson City, for appellant.
Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.
This is an appeal by Francis McGrath, appellant, from a 180-day full order of protection enjoining him from abusing and threatening to abuse, molesting, stalking or disturbing the peace of Barbara McGrath, respondent, and from entering respondent's home. Appellant asserts two points on appeal: 1) the trial court erred in entering a full order of protection because it lacked sufficient evidence to do so; and 2) the trial court erred when it determined certain evidence presented by the appellant was irrelevant. We dismiss the appeal for mootness.
Because of our disposition of the appeal, we need not set forth a detailed recitation of the facts. The marriage of Francis McGrath, appellant, and Barbara McGrath, respondent, was dissolved on February 2, 1996. On April 8, 1996, respondent went to appellant's home to retrieve tax information she had requested from appellant. Respondent testified that as she was standing at appellant's door, he picked her up by the shoulders of her coat and threw her from the doorway, across the front porch. That day, respondent filed for, and received, an ex parte order of protection under § 455.035 RSMo Supp.1996. A hearing for full order of protection under § 455.040 RSMo Supp.1996 was held on April 23, 1996. The court determined that sufficient evidence existed to grant a full order of protection, which enjoined appellant from abusing, threatening to abuse, molesting, stalking or disturbing the peace of respondent and from entering respondent's dwelling while the full order was in effect.
The 180-day order expired on October 23, 1996. In the interim, appellant's appeal, filed on May 3, 1996, has come before this court. From the full order of protection, appellant now appeals.
Because the full order of protection expired on October 23, 1996, and the record does not indicate that the order was extended, we find that the appeal of the grant of full order of protection is moot. Pope v. Howard, 907 S.W.2d 257, 258 (Mo.App.1995). Thus we dismiss for mootness.
We recognize that dismissal is discretionary in a moot case, and that we can exercise our jurisdiction where an appeal presents an issue, which: " '(a) is of general public interest and importance; (b) will evade appellate review unless the court exercises its special jurisdiction; (c) will recur.' " Id., citing Cross v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.App.1991). In Toll v. Toll, 882 S.W.2d 290 (Mo.App.1994), we held that an expired full order of protection can be reviewed if it involves issues of public importance. We also held in Toll that questions of sufficiency of the evidence do not rise to a level of special public interest that necessitates the discretionary exercise of review of a moot appeal. Id.
Here, even if we were to review for sufficiency of the evidence, we find the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's order, is sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.W. v. Mabry
...T.D.H., 258 S.W.3d at 851; Jenkins, 231 S.W.3d at 833; Oplotnik v. Alexander, 105 S.W.3d 923, 925 (Mo.App.2003); McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Mo.App.1997); L.W., 882 S.W.2d at 291. Likewise, a challenge to a trial court's evidentiary rulings excluding evidence as irrelevant does n......
-
McAlister v. Strohmeyer
...a weapon at her, but to seek his own order of protection to prevent her from coming onto his property. She relies on McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46 (Mo.App. W.D.1997), to support her claim. In McGrath, the appellant, against whom a full order of protection had been granted, appealed the ......
-
Jenkins v. McLeod, ED 88541.
...v. Philips, 169 S.W.3d 896, 897 (Mo.App. E.D.2005); Oplotnik v. Alexander, 105 S.W.3d 923, 925 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003); McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Mo.App. W.D.1997); Pope v. Howard, 907 S.W.2d 257, 258-59 (Mo.App. W.D.1995); In Interest of L.W., 882 S.W.2d 290, 291 (Mo.App. Here, th......
-
J.S. v. D.C.
...extend the order; thus, we find that the appeal from the judgment granting the Full Order of Protection is moot. See McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Mo.App. W.D.1997), citing Pope v. Howard, 907 S.W.2d 257, 258 (Mo.App. W.D.1995). We acknowledge that dismissal is discretionary in a m......
-
Conforming doctrine to practice: making room for collateral consequences in the Missouri mootness analysis.
...S.W.3d 843, 843 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (per curiam); Oplotnik v. Alexander, 105 S.W.3d 923, 923 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003); McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Pope, 907 S.W.2d at 258-59; Toll v. Toll, 882 S.W.2d 290, 291 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (per (54.) 882 S.W.2d at 291. (5......
-
Section 53 ChildProtection
OrdersAct
...often dismisses the appeal for mootness. See, e.g., Hannah v. McCubbin, 21 S.W.3d 125, 126 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). But the court of appeals may exercise discretion to decide an otherwise moot issue on the merits if “it is of general ......
-
Section 13.59 Judicial Discretion
...the court does not need to issue a full order. The McAlister court distinguished a decision that it made in 1997, McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). In McGrath, the petitioner went to the respondent’s house “without invitation to retrieve some tax information.” Id. at 4......
-
Section 13.59 Judicial Discretion
...the court does not need to issue a full order. The McAlister court distinguished a decision that it made in 1997, McGrath v. McGrath, 939 S.W.2d 46 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). In McGrath, the petitioner went to the respondent’s house “without invitation to retrieve some tax information.” Id. at 4......