Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-411,76-411
• Citation: 49 Ohio St.2d 158,359 N.E.2d 702,3 O.O.3d 174
• Parties: , 3 O.O.3d 174 ALLEXANDER et al., Appellants, v. BUCKEYE PIPE LINE COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 158

49 Ohio St.2d 158

359 N.E.2d 702, 3 O.O.3d 174

ALLEXANDER et al., Appellants, v. BUCKEYE PIPE LINE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 76-411.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Feb. 9, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

The plaintiff landowners, appellants herein, brought suit against the defendant pipeline company, asserting eight causes of action for damages and injunctive relief in relation to the right of the defendant to operate pipelines through, under and across plaintiffs' property pursuant to instruments of easement and right of way. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment on all but one of the causes of action. The trial court granted the motion and entered final judgment dismissing seven of the causes of action, stating in its judgment entry that it found 'no just reason for delay in the making and filing of final Judgment Entry on the issues here disposed of.'

The Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiffs' appeal, sua sponte, for the reason that the judgment appealed from was not a final order, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal

The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Betts & Betts, Jackson E. Betts, Hinton, Noble & Bryant and Thomas F. Bryant, Findlay, for appellants.

Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Russell E. Leasure, Cleveland and John C. Halleck, Bowling Green, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Civ.R. 54(B) provides, in pertinent part, that '(w)hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may enter 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.'

In Whitaker-Merrell v. Geupel Co. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 184, 280 N.E.2d 922, the syllabus states:

'A trial court is authorized to grant final summary judgment upon the whole case, as to fewer than all of the claims or parties in multi-party or multi-claim actions, only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay until judgment is granted as to all the claims and parties. In that event, the judgment is reviewable upon the determination of no reason for delay, as well as for error in the granting of judgment; otherwise, the judgment is not final and not reviewable. 'See, also, State, ex rel. Jacobs, v. Municipal Court (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 239, 284 N.E.2d 584. In so holding, this court necessarily found Civ.R. 54(B) to be valid insofar as it permits piecemeal appeals in certain cases.

The Court of Appeals herein nevertheless held that Civ.R. 54(B) is ineffective, reasoning that it is a procedural rule which purports to make final and appealable a judgment which otherwise would not be, and that it cannot modify the substantive definitions of a 'final order', as set out in R.C. 2505.02, and of an 'action,' as set out in R.C. 2307.01.

The Court of Appeals is correct in its premise that Civ.R. 54(B) cannot abridge, enlarge, or modify any...