Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): as provided in Rule 74.01(b). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss father’s appeal. GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI, J., concur. 1 . The docket sheets reflect service of process was issued on Lay on March 4, 1997, though the record does not indicate service of process was ever obtained. However, "[fjailure to have served process on [certain defendants] by any given time, without any action or disposition as to such defendants by the trial court, would not eliminate them as parties to this action at this time. A party to an action is a person whose name is designated on the record as plaintiff or defendant.” Cooper v. Barr, 413 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Mo.1967) (bracketed language in original; citation omitted); see State ex rel. Schweitzer v. Greene, 438 S.W.2d 229, 231 (Mo.banc 1969) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party loses its right to contest default final judgment on grounds of defective service of process by entering general appearance unless it also contests service of process or raises issue of personal jurisdiction (B) holding trial courts judgment dismissing petition as to one of two defendants not final despite lack of service or entry of appearance of second defendant (C) holding that one of the effects of submitting to the courts jurisdiction by making a general appearance is that a party waives any objection to service of process (D) holding premature notice of appeal was treated as entered on date of entry of final judgment (E) holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment
Output (English): holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment