The appellant, Donald Lee Erickson, a lay pro se litigant throughout all of these proceedings, 1 (Erickson) challenges
the trial court's judgment of November 9, 1989, granting respondent's, Pulitzer Publishing Company (Pulitzer), motion for
summary judgment on Count I of his petition. Subsequently, in the same judgment, the trial court denied Erickson's motion
for summary judgment on Count I. Erickson appeals that judgment which denied his motion for summary judgment. In addition
to the trial court's judgments on those motions for summary judgment on Count I, Erickson also is seeking to appeal the trial
court's judgment of September 13, 1989, dismissing Counts II, III, V, VI, VII and VIII of his petition. 2 We hold that the trial court correctly granted Pulitzer's motion for summary judgment as to Count I of Erickson's petition.
We also hold that the trial court's judgment denying Erickson's motion for summary judgment is not reviewable, because Erickson
failed to comply with Rule 74.04(c). We reject Erickson's arguments that the trial court erred in granting Pulitzer's motion
to dismiss Counts II, V, and VI because Erickson failed to comply with the court's rules.
