Butler v. Van Sant
Decision Date | 04 October 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 6929,6929 |
Citation | 365 P.2d 210,90 Ariz. 46 |
Parties | Joseph R. BUTLER, Appellant, v. Edward VAN SANT, Appellee. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Shortridge & Quisenberry, Phoenix, for appellant.
Stephen W. Connors, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Maricopa County granting defendant-appellee's motion to dismiss the action. There are two reasons why there is no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.
First, the order of the court below is not an order enumerated in A.R.S. § 12-2101 upon which an appeal can be based. The defendant below made a motion to dismiss upon the grounds that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court below by minute order granted defendant's motion to dismiss. It does not appear from the record that a judgment of dismissal was ever entered.
This Court in the past has held that a judgment dismissing an action is a final decision which can be appealed but an order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is merely an unappealable preliminary or interlocutory order. Reed v. Coyner Crop Dusters, 83 Ariz. 153, 317 P.2d 944; State Board of Barber Examiners v. Edwards, 76 Ariz. 27, 258 P.2d 418; Meloy v. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 72 Ariz. 406, 236 P.2d 732.
The second ground for dismissing this appeal is the failure of appellant to designate any assignments of error upon which he relies for reversal.
Rule 5(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, 17 A.R.S., provides:
'* * * The brief of appellant shall contain a short and clear statement disclosing: * * *
Rule 5(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona provides:
* * *
* * *
Appellant by his complete failure to comply or even attempt to comply with the court rules relating to assignments of error has waived any error which may have been committed.
It has long been the rule in this jurisdiction that in the absence of any assignment of error the court may dismiss the appeal. Bender v. Bender, 49 Ariz. 72, 64 P.2d 818; Hansen v. Hansen, 26 Ariz. 292, 224 P. 826. For a collection of earlier cases so holding see Bouldin v. Sheerer, 21 Ariz. 247, 187 P. 568.
We have also held that a motion to dismiss an appeal will be granted when an appellant has failed to set forth any assignments of error. In re Hesse's Estate, 65 Ariz. 169, 177 P.2d 217. We have also consistently held that questions not raised by sufficient assignments of error will not be considered on appeal. Chesley v. Jones, 81 Ariz. 1, 299 P.2d 179; In re Graham's Estate, 73 Ariz. 179, 239...
To continue reading
Request your trial