Rail N Ranch Corp. v. State, 2
Decision Date | 03 November 1966 |
Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
Citation | 419 P.2d 742,4 Ariz.App. 301 |
Parties | RAIL N RANCH CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation, Lloyd W. Golder III and Helen T. Golder, husband and wife, Lloyd W. Golder, Jr. and Esther B. Golder, husband and wife, Appellants, v. The STATE of Arizona et al., Appellees. 296. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Odgers & Barker, by J. Emery Barker, Tuscon, for appellants.
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Lesher, Scruggs, Rucker, Kimble & Lindamood, Tucson, by Robert O. Lesher and William E. Kimble, Special Assts. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Appellants have taken this appeal from a 'judgment' of dismissal entered in Pima County Superior Court as to fewer than all of the named defendants, appellees herein. On the authority of our recent decision in Pegler v. Sullivan, 4 Ariz.App. 149, 418 P.2d 395 (filed September 27, 1966), appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
The subject 'judgment' recites in pertinent part:
'* * * and as to them the Complaint is lismissed; and that judgment be, and it is hereby, entered in favor of the said defendants and against the plaintiffs.'
Rule 54(b), as amended, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., provides:
While the judgment does direct entry of judgment in favor of the appellees, there is no '* * * express determination that there is no just reason for delay * * *' as required by Rule 54(b), supra. As stated by the Supreme Court of Arizona in Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc., 90 Ariz. 42, 365 P.2d 208 (1961), a 'multiple claims' action:
'In accordance with the language of the rule it is clear that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Connolly v. Great Basin Ins. Co.
...'direction' mandated by the foregoing rule is a prerequisite for appeal where there are multiple parties. Rail N Ranch Corporation v. State, 4 Ariz.App. 301, 419 P.2d 742, 743 (1966); Pegler v. Sullivan, 4 Ariz.App. 149, 418 P.2d 395, 396 (1966); Mageary v. Hoyt, 91 Ariz. 41, 43, 369 P.2d 6......
-
Rail N Ranch Corp. v. State
...C.J., and KRUCKER, J., concur. 1 This litigation was also the subject of another opinion of this court, Rail N Ranch Corporation v. State, 4 Ariz.App. 301, 419 P.2d 742 (1966), in which we held that the trial court's original order of dismissal was not an appealable final judgment under Rul......
-
Mozes v. Daru, 2
...See also the recent decisions of this court in Pegler v. Sullivan, 4 Ariz.App. 149, 418 P.2d 395 (1966); Rail N Ranch Corp. v. State, 4 Ariz.App. 301, 419 P.2d 742 (1966). In view of the failure to make such an express determination, the judgment of July 17, 1963 did not become final until ......
-
Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dept. Stores of Ariz., Inc.
... ... * ... No. 2 CA-CIV 64 ... Court of Appeals of Arizona ... Jan. 5, ... the provisions of the Fair Trade Practices Act of the State of Arizona, Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 44, Chapter 10, ... 42, 365 P.2d 208 (1961). See also Rail N Ranch Corp. v. State of Arizona, 4 Ariz.App. 301, 419 ... ...