Felger v. Nichols, 449

Decision Date26 February 1976
Docket NumberNo. 449,449
Citation30 Md.App. 278,352 A.2d 330
PartiesMilton R. FELGER v. Zane Gray NICHOLS.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Alan Hilliard Legum, Annapolis, for appellant.

William A. Franch and Joseph P. Manck, Annapolis, with whom were Goldsborough & Franch, Annapolis, on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before POWERS, GILBERT and DAVIDSON, JJ.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

On 19 February 1975, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, the appellant, Milton R. Felger, filed this action against the appellee, Zane G. Nichols. On 12 May 1975, Judge Karl F. Biener granted the appellee's motion for summary judgment in open court. On 12 May, Judge Biener signed a document which read in pertinent part: 'Motion for Summary Judgment Granted.' A note stapled to this document said: 'Counsel will prepare order.' A docket entry showed that the motion for summary judgment was granted. No judgment was entered or noted on the docket. On 5 June 1975, an order for appeal was filed.

Generally an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. 1 Here the appeal was taken from the grant of a motion for summary judgment.

Maryland Rule 610 d 1 requires that when a motion for summary judgment is granted, the 'judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith.' This rule establishes that the grant of the motion is nothing more than a determination that the moving party is entitled to a judgment. It does not itself constitute the entry of final judgment. 2

In our view, the grant of such a motion is analogous to the grant of a motion for a directed verdict. 3 There is no right of appeal from the grant of a motion for a directed verdict. 4

We hold that there is no right of appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is premature. We shall dismiss.

Appeal dismissed. Costs to be paid by appellant. Mandate to issue forthwith.

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Impala Platinum Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • July 19, 1978
    ...for summary judgment does not of itself constitute the entry of final judgment from which an appeal may be made. Felger v. Nichols, 30 Md.App. 278, 279, 352 A.2d 330 (1976). In any event, we believe that the grant of the motion for summary judgment was improper. We find that the pleadings, ......
  • Houghton v. County Com'rs of Kent County
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1985
    ...Associates v. Apper, 276 Md. 698, 350 A.2d 661 (1976); Aronstamn v. Coffey, 259 Md. 47, 267 A.2d 741 (1970); and Felger v. Nichols, 30 Md.App. 278, 352 A.2d 330 (1976), cited with approval in Impala Platinum v. Impala Sales, 283 Md. 296, 327, 389 A.2d 887 (1978). (Id., p. 5). Based on the p......
  • Ralkey v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1984
    ...A.2d 773. The grant of the motion does not constitute entry of a final judgment from which an appeal can be taken, Felger v. Nichols, 30 Md.App. 278, 279, 352 A.2d 330 (1976), and the denial of the motion does not preclude resubmission of it at a later point in the proceedings. Joy v. Anne ......
  • Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 9, 1987
    ...dismissed as not allowed by law. Maryland Rule 1035.b.1. See Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, Section 12-301, and Felger v. Nichols, 30 Md.App. 278 ."5 We note that Maryland Rule 2-501, relating to summary judgment, makes no provision for leave to amend a complaint in an order gra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT