Jackson County Circuit Court Missouri Trial Court With
In general, the circuit court handles all civil cases with claims of more than 25,000 and all felony criminal cases (where the accused, if found guilty, could be sent to prison).For the purposes of this section, Jackson County is hereby divided into an. It is the trial court with the broadest powers in Michigan. The 4th Circuit Court is the Michigan Circuit Court that covers Jackson County.
STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR THE HEALING ARTS 3605 Missouri Boulevard P.O. 351H Street Independence., MO 64052 Petitioner v. JONES d/b/a Shiloh Ridge Apartments, Appellant,IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE LAWRENCE E.
In the circuit court of Jackson County and obtained a mandatory temporary. , similar to the telegram sent to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. Third oldest program in Missouri began February 1998 Adult pre-plea, post-plea and re-entry programming Collaborative team approach among.IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI 16TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF MISSOURI In Re: Updated Court Operations under Supreme Court Operational Directives - Effective FebruEastern Jackson County Courthouse to operate at Phase 3 Kansas City Courthouse to operate at Phase 3 Family Justice Center to Operate at Phase 3JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT and Teresa York, Court Administrator, Respondents. STAY OF EXECUTION OF ORDERThe Missouri Press Association, Amicus Curiae,DRUG COURT.
Peterson, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.Jean Ann Maneke, Kansas City, MO, James R. Application for Transfer Denied May 31, 2005.*55 Don A. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied March 29, 2005.
Jones, d/b/a Shiloh Ridge Apartments, appeals the dismissal of his amended petition for mandamus and/or mandatory injunction against the Jackson County Circuit Court and Teresa York, the Jackson County Court Administrator (referred *56 to collectively as "the Circuit Court"). SMITH, JJ.Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 29, 2005.Kennedy F. Hipsch, Kansas City, MO, for respondent York.Before HARDWICK, P.J., BRECKENRIDGE and EDWIN H. Matanic, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent Jackson County Circuit Court.Harlene J.
Jones argues that the trial court erred in striking his motion for summary judgment. Jones claims that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to depose a programmer from the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA). Jones contends that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to state a claim for relief based upon his assertion that the Circuit Court violated Supreme Court Operating Rules 2.02 and 2.04. In his second and third points, Mr. Jones claims that the trial court erred in finding that he failed to state a claim for relief based upon his assertion that the Circuit Court violated the Sunshine Law, sections 610.010 et seq., RSMo 2000.
Jones submitted a request to the court administrator seeking access to public records and electronic copies of the records on CD-ROM. According to his amended petition, on July 6, 2000, Mr. Jones, 67 S.W.3d 702, 704 n.
Jones filed a petition for mandamus and mandatory injunction against the Circuit Court. Jones' request on the grounds that Court Operating Rule 2.04 "requires that public court records be made available only by inquiry of a single case or by accessing any public index."Subsequently, Mr. The court administrator denied Mr. Jones wanted records containing specific information about these types of cases, including the date the case was filed the case style the names and addresses of the plaintiff and defendant the assigned court the case number the party against whom judgment was entered the date the judgment was entered the amount of the judgment the date the judgment was satisfied disposition of the petition and the case type.
Jones sought for both counts was a judgment "in mandamus and/or for a mandatory injunction" *57 compelling the Circuit Court to give him access to the records containing the information he requested and electronic copies of such records on CD-ROM. In Count II of his amended petition, he alleged that Court Operating Rules 2.02 and 2.04 mandate that the Circuit Court make available to him the records in the format he requested when it is technologically and economically feasible to do so, which he claimed it was. Jones alleged that the Circuit Court violated the Sunshine Law by refusing to provide him with the records he requested. In Count I of his amended petition, Mr.
Jones' petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court held a hearing on the parties' motions and, on April 9, 2002, entered its judgment dismissing both counts of Mr. Jones then filed suggestions in opposition to the motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. Jones' petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Jones raises six points on appeal, resolution of his points alleging error in the granting of the Circuit Court's motion to dismiss his petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted disposes of the appeal. The Apopinion was withdrawn, and the case was resubmitted on August 31, 2004.Although Mr. On our own motion, we granted rehearing, without additional briefing or argument, to address issues raised in the Attorney General's motion. Jones' motion for rehearing and denied his motion for transfer. The Attorney General, as amicus curiae, also filed a motion for rehearing or transfer. Jones subsequently filed a motion for rehearing or transfer.
No attempt is made to weigh any facts alleged as to whether they are credible or persuasive. It assumes that all of plaintiff's averments are true, and liberally grants to plaintiff all reasonable inferences therefrom. When reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, this court considers that: A motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is solely a test of the adequacy of the plaintiff's petition. Louis Healthcare Network, 41 S.W.3d 462, 463-64 (Mo.
Elyria Foundry Co., 955 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. Jones' appeal, this court must determine, sua sponte, whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Banc 1993) (internal citations omitted)).Before reaching the dispositive points of Mr. Valley College, 860 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Mo.
Rule 67.03 (stating that "ny involuntary dismissal shall be without prejudice unless the court in its order for dismissal shall otherwise specify"). Thus, the dismissal was without prejudice. Jones' petition without stating whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Jones' petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the Sunshine Law did not apply to the records he wished to obtain from the court. "In such a case, the judgment of dismissalalbeit without prejudiceamounts to an adjudication *58 on the merits and may be appealed." Id.Here, the trial court ruled that Count I of Mr. Doerhoff Surgical Servs., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo. Nevertheless, "hen the effect of the order is to dismiss the plaintiff's action and not the pleading merely, then the judgment entered is final and appealable." Mahoney v.
Jones had no valid claims because the statute and rules under which he was seeking relief do not apply to the conduct alleged. Instead, the trial court effectively ruled that Mr. Jones failed to plead the required elements of his claims.
Consequently, the judgment is appealable. Co., 886 S.W.2d 220, 221 (Mo.App.1994)). Nixon, 48 S.W.3d 76, 79 (Mo.App. Dos Hombres-Independence, Inc.
Thus, he argues that he stated a cause of action for mandamus and injunctive relief.The remedy of mandamus is available only under limited circumstances. He further argues that he was not asking the Circuit Court to create new records, but simply to retrieve records that were already in existence in a different form. Specifically, he claims that the trial court erred in finding that the Circuit Court's record keeping is a judicial rather than an administrative function and, therefore, is not subject to the Sunshine Law. Jones argues that the trial court erred in dismissing Count I of his first amended petition on the grounds that the Sunshine Law did not require the Circuit Court to give him access to the records he sought.
To have been entitled to mandamus, Mr.
0 kommentar(er)
