Cortese v. Atlantic Richfield, 93-981
Decision Date | 31 May 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93-981,93-981 |
Citation | 317 Ark. 207,876 S.W.2d 581 |
Parties | Robert CORTESE, Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD, et al., Appellees. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
George R. Wise, Jr., Edward O. Moody, Little Rock, for Cortese.
N.M. Norton, Jr., Edwin L. Lowther, Jr., Charles L. Schlumberger, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, for AT & T, Okonite, and Square D.
William Russell Meeks III, Meeks & Carter, P.A., Little Rock, for Westinghouse Elec.
Michael J. Dennis, Stephen A. Matthews, Bridges, Young, Matthews & Drake, Pine Bluff, for Atlantic Richfield, Anaconda Co. and Graybar Elec.
Floyd M. Thomas, Jr., Compton, Prewett, Thomas & Hickey, P.A., El Dorado, for Phelps Dodge Corp.
Carolyn B. Witherspoon, McGlinchey Stafford Lang, Little Rock, for Keathley-Patterson.
Marcella J. Taylor, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates and Woodyard, Little Rock, for USX Corp.
Frederick S. Ursery, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, for Carol Wire & Cable.
Tim A. Cheatham, Barber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, P.A., Little Rock, for American Insulated Wire.
Appellant, Robert Cortese, appeals an order of the Saline Circuit Court granting summary judgment in this asbestos products liability case. The summary judgment was granted on the basis that the three-year statute of limitations had expired when appellant filed his complaint. The order appealed to this court granted summary judgment to less than all the defendants without making an express determination there was no just reason for delay and directing the entry of a final judgment. Consequently, the order is not a final order according to ARCP Rule 54(b) and we must dismiss the appeal. Compliance with Rule 54(b) is a jurisdictional requirement this court is obliged to raise on its own even though the parties do not. Parks v. Hillhaven Nursing Home, 309 Ark. 106, 827 S.W.2d 148 (1992).
Appellant filed suit against approximately thirty-four defendants, all of whom appear to be electrical companies or wire and cable companies. Some of the defendant companies appear to be affiliated with other defendant companies. The order appealed to this court granted summary judgment to some fourteen of these defendants. Neither the abstract, the transcript, nor the supplements thereto reflect that the trial court took any action with respect to the remaining twenty defendants. Thus, we are unable to determine that appellant's claims against the remaining twenty defendants have been finally determined or disposed of, and the order is therefore not a final judgment in compliance with Rule 54(b). See Reynolds v. Watts, 315 Ark. 226, 864 S.W.2d 870 (1993).
ARCP Rule 54(b) provides that a trial court may direct a final judgment as to fewer than all the parties or claims, "only upon an express determination, supported by specific factual findings, that there is no just reason for delay." Barnhart v. City of Fayetteville, 316 Ark. 742, 875 S.W.2d 79 (1994); Franklin v. Osca, 308 Ark. 409, 825 S.W.2d 812 (1992); Austin v. First Nat'l Bank, 305 Ark. 456, 808 S.W.2d 773 (1991). There has been no such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McKibben v. Mullis
...asserted in the future. Shackelford v. Arkansas Power and Light, 334 Ark. 634, 976 S.W.2d 950 (1998); See also, Cortese v. Atlantic Richfield, 317 Ark. 207, 876 S.W.2d 581 (1994). However, this case does not an order that disposes of less than all of the claims against all of the parties, a......
-
Hambay v. Williams
...supra; Tucker v. Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25, supra; Reeves v. Hinkle, 321 Ark. 28, 899 S.W.2d 841 (1995); Cortese v. Atlantic Richfield, 317 Ark. 207, 876 S.W.2d 581 (1994). Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or by this court. Dean v. Tallman, 331 Ark. 127, 959 S.W......
-
Hodges v. Huckabee
...supra; Tucker v. Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25, supra; Reeves v. Hinkle, 321 Ark. 28, 899 S.W.2d 841 (1995); Cortese v. Atlantic Richfield, 317 Ark. 207, 876 S.W.2d 581 (1994). Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or by this court. Dean v. Tallman, 331 Ark. 127, 959 S.W......
-
Henderson v. Little Rock School Dist., 97-990
...supra; Tucker v. Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25, supra; Reeves v. Hinkle, 321 Ark. 28, 899 S.W.2d 841 (1995); Cortese v. Atlantic Richfield, 317 Ark. 207, 876 S.W.2d 581 (1994). Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or by this court. Dean v. Tallman, 331 Ark. 127, 959 S.W......