Hait v. Miller
| Citation | 559 P.2d 260,38 Colo.App. 503 |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--237,76--237 |
| Parties | Jack HAIT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter K. MILLER, d/b/a Ten Pin Lounge, et al., Defendants-Appellees. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Brenman, Sobol & Baum, Martin Zerobnick, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
George J. Duckworth, Denver, for defendant-appellee Walter K. Miller.
No appearance for defendant-appellee George A. Canjar.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chris J. Eliopulos, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellee Joseph Dolan.
Appellant Hait appeals the granting of a liquor license to Miller. Because there is no final judgment, we dismiss the appeal.
Hait instituted this action in the district court under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) alleging among other things that appellee Canjar abused his discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the granting of Miller's application for a liquor license, and that the action of appellee Dolan in denying Hait's application for a state hearing was unlawful, Arbitrary, and capricious. Hait prayed that the defendants be enjoined from giving effect to the decision approving the application for a liquor license.
After argument, the district court issued the following order:
'IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Opinion of the Director of Excise and Licenses for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, be, and hereby is affirmed.'
The record reveals no action being taken by the court with respect to the claim against appellee Dolan.
Although the absence of a final judgment has not been raised by any of the parties, we are required to take notice thereof. Schtul v. Christ, 132 Colo. 293, 287 P.2d 661 (1955). There is no order dismissing or otherwise disposing the claim against the appellee Dolan, nor is there any order entered in accordance with C.R.C.P. 54(b). Thus, there is no final judgment to support this appeal as required by C.A.R. 1(a).
We do not engage in piecemeal review of a case, and '(a) judgment or decree is not final which determines the action as to less than all of the defendants, except as provided in Rule 54(b),' Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652 (1960). We hold that C.R.C.P. 54(b) is not applicable to the instant case. See Trans Central v. McBreen, 31 Colo.App. 71, 497 P.2d 1033 (1972); Cf. Moschetti v Liquor Licensing Authority, 176 Colo. 281, 490 P.2d 299 (1971).
The appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cb Serv. Corp.., 08CA2092.
...1(a). Where there is no final judgment, we must take notice, even if the parties have not raised the issue. Hait v. Miller, 38 Colo.App. 503, 504, 559 P.2d 260, 261 (1977). The final judgment requirement is jurisdictional. Without a final judgment, we must dismiss the appeal. Mission Viejo,......
-
In re Evans
...or appeal of a magistrate's order. In re Marriage of Roosa , 89 P.3d 524, 529 (Colo. App. 2004) ; see also Hait v. Miller , 38 Colo. App. 503, 505, 559 P.2d 260, 261 (1977) ("We do not engage in piecemeal review of a case....").¶ 12 In the January 2019 order, the judge adopted some of the m......
-
Soon Yee Scott v. City of Englewood, 82CA0696
...court sua sponte, is whether the trial court's decision to remand constitutes a final judgment. C.A.R. 1(a)(1); See Hait v. Miller, 38 Colo.App. 503, 559 P.2d 260 (1977). The second, which is raised by Englewood on appeal, is whether Scott's failure to join the Council left the trial court ......
- Murray v. Montgomery Ward Life Ins. Co.