Pomirko v. Sayad, No. 49329
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | SATZ; SMITH, P.J., and SNYDER |
| Citation | 693 S.W.2d 323 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 49329 |
| Parties | Michael POMIRKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Homer E. SAYAD, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
Page 323
v.
Homer E. SAYAD, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Eastern District,
Division Four.
Page 324
Donald V. Nangle, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Daniel H. Cregan, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
SATZ, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from the denial of his petition for a temporary restraining order. We dismiss the appeal as premature.
Plaintiff is an owner and "bailor" of video poker machines. Defendants are the members of the Board of Police Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Department of the City of St. Louis and the Chief of Police.
On October 15, 1984, plaintiff filed a petition to enjoin the defendants from seizing his video poker machines and those of others in their jurisdiction as per se gambling devices. In his petition, denominated "Petition for Temporary Restraining Order Without Notice," plaintiff requested both temporary and permanent injunctive relief until a perceived conflict between two opinions issued by separate Divisions of this Court was "finally resolved by appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court...." 1 On October 19, 1984 a hearing on plaintiff's petition was held. The trial court entered its order denying the petition for a temporary restraining order.
In his first point on appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court's order denying his petition for a temporary restraining order was, in effect, a denial of a petition for permanent injunctive relief and a determination of the cause on the merits; therefore, plaintiff reasons, the trial court's order is a final appealable judgment. We disagree.
There are three permissible phases in an injunction proceeding: 1) a restraining order granted against a defendant with or without notice or hearing; 2) a temporary injunction granted after notice and hearing; and 3) a permanent injunction granted after a final disposition on the merits of the case. Rule 92.02. See also Frimel v. Humphrey, 555 S.W.2d 350, 352 (Mo.App.1977). Temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions merely seek to maintain the status quo between the parties and therefore are not final judgments on the merits. E.g., C.M. Brown & Assocs., Inc. v. King, 662 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Mo.App.1983); State ex rel. Schoenbacher v. Kelly, 408 S.W.2d 383, 388 (Mo.App.1966). Consequently, the denial of a prayer for a temporary restraining order or a temporary injunction is not appealable. E.g.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Myers Memorial Airport Committee, Inc. v. City of Carthage, No. 21433
...S.W.2d 495, 497 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); Jackes-Evans Manufacturing Co. v. Christen, 848 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Mo.App. E.D.1993); Pomirko v. Sayad, 693 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App. E.D.1985). The purpose of the first two is to preserve the status quo until the trial court adjudicates the merits of the cl......
-
Leone v. Leone, Nos. WD
...Village Rehabilitation Project v. Land Reutilization Authority of St. Louis, 720 S.W.2d 372, 372-73 (Mo.App.1986); Pomirko v. Sayad, 693 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App.1985). Accordingly, the portion of the appeal relating to the trial court's order denying Father's motion for a temporary restrain......
-
A.B. Chance Co. v. Schmidt, No. WD
...hearing on the temporary injunction would be repeated for the permanent injunction and is final for purposes of appeal. Pomirko v. Sayad, 693 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Mo.App.1985). Rule The plaintiff, the A.B. Chance Company (Chance) of Centralia, makes epoxy resin rods and tubes reinforced with fi......
-
White v. Mid-Continent Investments, Inc., MID-CONTINENT
...on the merits of the prayer for a permanent injunction, they may do so without the defendants' first filing an answer. Pomirko v. Sayad, 693 S.W.2d 323, 324-25 (Mo.App.1985); Big Valley, Inc. v. First National Bank, 578 S.W.2d 616, 618 (Mo.App.1979). Cf. Nelson v. Brentwood Condominium Ass'......
-
State ex rel. Myers Memorial Airport Committee, Inc. v. City of Carthage, No. 21433
...S.W.2d 495, 497 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); Jackes-Evans Manufacturing Co. v. Christen, 848 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Mo.App. E.D.1993); Pomirko v. Sayad, 693 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App. E.D.1985). The purpose of the first two is to preserve the status quo until the trial court adjudicates the merits of the cl......
-
Leone v. Leone, Nos. WD
...Village Rehabilitation Project v. Land Reutilization Authority of St. Louis, 720 S.W.2d 372, 372-73 (Mo.App.1986); Pomirko v. Sayad, 693 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App.1985). Accordingly, the portion of the appeal relating to the trial court's order denying Father's motion for a temporary restrain......
-
A.B. Chance Co. v. Schmidt, No. WD
...hearing on the temporary injunction would be repeated for the permanent injunction and is final for purposes of appeal. Pomirko v. Sayad, 693 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Mo.App.1985). Rule The plaintiff, the A.B. Chance Company (Chance) of Centralia, makes epoxy resin rods and tubes reinforced with fi......
-
White v. Mid-Continent Investments, Inc., MID-CONTINENT
...on the merits of the prayer for a permanent injunction, they may do so without the defendants' first filing an answer. Pomirko v. Sayad, 693 S.W.2d 323, 324-25 (Mo.App.1985); Big Valley, Inc. v. First National Bank, 578 S.W.2d 616, 618 (Mo.App.1979). Cf. Nelson v. Brentwood Condominium Ass'......