19, 1998, the trial court overruled the Director’s February 3,1998, motion asking the court to amend its judgment to terminate the respondent’s limited driving privileges for failure to maintain financial responsibility, but entered what it denominated an “amended order and judgment,” ordering the respondent to maintain proof of financial responsibility on file with the Director for the duration of his limited driving privileges. On March 31, 1998, the Director filed his notice of appeal, appealing the February 19, 1998, amended judgment. Appellate Jurisdiction Before we can address the merits of the Director’s claim, we must first address the respondent’s contention that we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Avery v. City of Columbia, 966 S.W.2d 315, 320 (Mo.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, the respondent contends that
holding that federal courts must ensure that they have jurisdiction before considering the merits of a case holding that in the attorneys fee proceeding we must accept as true the district courts determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred holding that we must first determine our jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the appeal holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question