Huff v. Dewey & Leboeuf, LLP

9 Citing cases

  1. State ex rel. Saint Louis Charter Sch. v. State Bd. of Educ.

    376 S.W.3d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that no final judgment had been entered because the document denominated as a “judgment” did not dispose of all parties and issues in the case

    ” The circuit court's designation of these rulings as final judgments is not conclusive, however, because we must independently determine if the judgments actually qualify as final judgments. See Huff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP, 340 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Mo.App.2011). A final judgment must dispose of all parties and all issues in the case and leave nothing for future determination.

  2. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Miceli

    480 S.W.3d 354 (E.D. Mo. 2015)

    The judgment contains findings of fact, conclusions of law, and disposes of all of Commonwealth's claims. SeeHuff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf, L.L.P., 340 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (explaining that to determine if final judgment is rendered “we look to the judgment's content, substance, and effect” (quoting West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 7, 11 n. 5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010))). Thus, we review the trial court's judgment on Commonwealth's motion as we would any other. “[T]he decree or judgment of the trial court will be sustained by the appellate court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.”

  3. Crown Diversified Holdings, LLC v. St. Louis Cnty.

    452 S.W.3d 226 (E.D. Mo. 2014)

    This is because, when a pending action involving the same set of facts, issues, object, parties, and purposes exists or is imminent, “it serves no sensible end to allow a defendant to seek a declaration by the trial court that he has a meritorious defense to the pending action.” Huff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, 340 S.W.3d 623, 627–28 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (citation and quotations omitted); see also Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid–Missouri, Inc. v. Donnelly, 298 S.W.3d 8, 13 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) ; American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nigl, 123 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Mo.App.E.D.2003). Here, Taxpayer filed its three-count petition against St. Louis County, the County Assessor, and the STC seeking a declaration that, for tax years 2009 through 2011, it is entitled to apportionment of the value of its aircraft, injunctive relief preventing the County Assessor from assessing taxes against Taxpayer in excess of the aircraft's apportioned value, and a writ of mandamus requiring the STC to allocate the value of the aircraft.

  4. Rail Switching Servs., Inc. v. Pemiscot Cnty. Port Auth.

    Case No. 1:13CV157 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jul. 11, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    RSSI cites several cases which state that declaratory judgment is inappropriate where the plaintiff has another adequate legal remedy, that is, that the plaintiff could assert its claim as a defense in an action brought by the defendant. See Huff v. Dewey & Lebouef, LLP, 340 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011); Preferred Physicians Mut. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Preferred Physicians Mut. Risk Retention Grp., 916 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (citing State ex rel. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Terte, 176S.W.2d 25, 30 (Mo. banc 1943)); Lane v. Lensmeyer, 158 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo. banc 2005). However, RSSI's reliance on these cases is misplaced.

  5. Archdekin v. Archdekin

    WD79710 (Mo. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2017)

    A "trial court's certification of a judgment as final is not conclusive," however. Huff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP, 340 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Mo. App. 2011). We "must independently determine if such judgment actually qualifies as a final judgment."

  6. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Miceli

    480 S.W.3d 354 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 17 times

    The judgment contains findings of fact, conclusions of law, and disposes of all of Commonwealth's claims. SeeHuff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf, L.L.P., 340 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (explaining that to determine if final judgment is rendered “we look to the judgment's content, substance, and effect” (quoting West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 7, 11 n. 5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010))). Thus, we review the trial court's judgment on Commonwealth's motion as we would any other. “[T]he decree or judgment of the trial court will be sustained by the appellate court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.”

  7. Crown Diversified Holdings, LLC v. St. Louis County

    452 S.W.3d 226 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 6 times

    This is because, when a pending action involving the same set of facts, issues, object, parties, and purposes exists or is imminent, “it serves no sensible end to allow a defendant to seek a declaration by the trial court that he has a meritorious defense to the pending action.” Huff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, 340 S.W.3d 623, 627–28 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (citation and quotations omitted); see also Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid–Missouri, Inc. v. Donnelly, 298 S.W.3d 8, 13 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) ; American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nigl, 123 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Mo.App.E.D.2003). Here, Taxpayer filed its three-count petition against St. Louis County, the County Assessor, and the STC seeking a declaration that, for tax years 2009 through 2011, it is entitled to apportionment of the value of its aircraft, injunctive relief preventing the County Assessor from assessing taxes against Taxpayer in excess of the aircraft's apportioned value, and a writ of mandamus requiring the STC to allocate the value of the aircraft.

  8. Duncan v. Mo. Alliance for Children & Families

    387 S.W.3d 389 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Rule 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, 627 (Mo.App.2011) (quoting West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 7, 10 n. 5 (Mo.App.2010)). This court must independently decide whether the judgment certified under Rule 74.01 actually qualifies as a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Fischer v. City of Washington, 55 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Mo.App.2001).

  9. William v. Dir. of Revenue

    358 S.W.3d 514 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times

    Missouri courts “ ‘have long held that declaratory relief power does not abolish or provide an additional existing remedy but instead addresses a deficiency or bridges a superfluity in the law.’ ” Huff v. Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP, 340 S.W.3d 623, 627 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (citation omitted). “[I]t serves no sensible end to allow a defendant to seek a declaration by the trial court that he has a meritorious defense to the pending action.