Ingalls v. Glass Unlimited, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 940369,940369 |
| Citation | Ingalls v. Glass Unlimited, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 1995) |
| Parties | Julia M. INGALLS, Plaintiff and Appellant v. GLASS UNLIMITED, INC., a corporation, Defendant and The Municipal Airport Authority of the City of Fargo, a municipal corporation, Defendant and Appellee. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Leland F. Hagen of Lee Hagen Law Office, Fargo, for plaintiff and appellant.
E. Thomas Conmy III and Andrew L.B. Noah of Nilles, Hansen & Davies, Fargo, for defendant and appellee; argued by E. Thomas Conmy III.
Julia M. Ingalls appeals a judgment dismissing one of the defendants in her action.We hold the district court improvidently granted Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., certification and dismiss the appeal.
On July 4, 1991, Julia M. Ingalls was injured at the Hector International Airport in Fargo.Ingalls contends an automatic door closed on her causing her to fall.Ingalls sued Glass Unlimited, Inc., the company responsible for installing and maintaining the automatic doors.Glass Unlimited was properly served and does not appeal.
The Municipal Airport Authority of Fargo is a public corporation which operates Hector Airport.On June 29, 1994, Ingalls personally served a summons and complaint on the executive director of the Airport Authority.The executive director notified the Airport Authority governing board at a board meeting on July 5, 1994.The board unanimously adopted a motion to receive the summons and complaint and to refer them to the Airport Authority's attorney.
The Airport Authority moved to dismiss the action under Rule 12, N.D.R.Civ.P., based on insufficiency of service and lack of personal jurisdiction.The Airport Authority argued Ingalls failed to serve the governing board as required under Rule 4(d)(2)(E), N.D.R.Civ.P. Ingalls concedes the executive director is not a board member, but argues the Airport Authority admitted service at the July 5, 1994, board meeting.The district court dismissed the action...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Estate of Stensland, Matter of
...appeal. For an example, see Courchene, 421 N.W.2d 811 (N.D.1988). But see, many decisions concluding that a Rule 54(b) certification was improvidently made: Wyatt v. Adams, 551 N.W.2d 775 (N.D.1996); Gessner v. City of Minot, 529 N.W.2d 868 (N.D.1995);
Ingalls v. Glass Unlimited, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 872 (N.D.1995). "A Rule 54(b) determination and direction ... should not be routine" and "piecemeal appeals should not be encouraged without appropriate reason."... -
Wyatt v. Adams
...Welding becomes moot. We have held on numerous occasions that potential mootness is a just reason for delay in entering a final judgment, making it inappropriate to enter a Rule 54(b) certification.
Ingalls v. Glass Unlimited, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 872 (N.D.1995); Gessner v. City of Minot, 529 N.W.2d 868 (N.D.1995); Imperial Oil v. Hanson, 510 N.W.2d 598 (N.D.1994); Bulman v. Hulstrand Construction Co., Inc., 503 N.W.2d 240 (N.D.1993). Rule 54(b) certification... -
Vanover v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
...entered a Rule 54(b) certification in this case, we are not bound by the court's determination, and we will sua sponte review the certification to determine if the court abused its discretion.
Ingalls v. Glass Unlimited, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 872 (N.D.1995); Gessner v. City of Minot, 529 N.W.2d 868 (N.D.1995); Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. Co., Inc., 503 N.W.2d 240 (N.D.1993); Janavaras v. Nat'l Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., 449 N.W.2d 578 (N.D.1989); Club... -
Hansen v. Scott
...recovery is not permitted against that person. Our cases about potential mootness under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) suggest an analogous principle. See Gessner, 529 N.W.2d at 869-70 (improper service of process on one defendant);
Ingalls, 529 N.W.2d at 872-73(same); Bulman, 503 N.W.2d at 241-42 (sovereign immunity [¶ 15] As this appeal is presently postured, the trial court has ruled that the Texas defendants had no duty to the daughters, and that the daughters' allegationsdevelopments in the trial court may moot the issues raised for appellate review. See Kosmatka, 2000 ND 210, ¶¶ 10-13, 619 N.W.2d 852; Symington, 1997 ND 93, ¶ 8, 563 N.W.2d 400; Wyatt, 551 N.W.2d at 777; Ingalls, 529 N.W.2d at 873; Gessner, 529 N.W.2d at 870; Bulman, 503 N.W.2d at [¶ 11] We have held a trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a Rule 54(b) certification if the issues raised in the appeal will not be mooted852; Symington v. Walle Mut. Ins. Co., 1997 ND 93, ¶ 5, 563 N.W.2d 400; Sickler v. Kirkwood, 1997 ND 40, ¶ 5, 560 N.W.2d 532, 533; Wyatt v. Adams, 551 N.W.2d 775, 777 (N.D.1996); Ingalls v. Glass Unlimited, Inc., 529 N.W.2d 872, 873 (N.D.1995); Gessner v. City of Minot, 529 N.W.2d 868, 870 (N.D.1995); Bulman v. Hulstrand Const. Co., Inc., 503 N.W.2d 240, 241 [¶ 9] The trial court's discretion must be measured against the "interest of...