Rutledge v. Vonfeldt
Decision Date | 06 May 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 4631,4631 |
Citation | 564 P.2d 350 |
Parties | J. Kent RUTLEDGE, Administrator of the Estate of James R. Hoffman, Deceased, et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Leonard R. VONFELDT et al., Appellees (Defendants below). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Arthur Kline, Kline & Swainson, and James E. Fitzgerald, Cheyenne, for appellants.
Alfred M. Pence, Pence, Millett & MacMillan, Laramie, for appellees.
Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLINTOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.
This appeal concerns two actions, one presecuted under the Wrongful Death statutes (§§ 1-1065 and 1-1066, W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp.) and one prosecuted for personal injuries, which were consolidated for purposes of the trial and this appeal. Plaintiffs-appellants come to this court seeking reversal of adverse judgments entered in the district court of Platte County.
The judgments in question were entered in favor of the defendants on April 30, 1975. On May 8, 1975, J. Kent Rutledge, Administrator of the Estate of James R. Hoffman, Deceased, terminated the running of the time for appeal for all parties by filing a motion for a new trial in compliance with Rules 59 and 73(a), W.R.C.P. Sun Land & Cattle Co. v. Brown, Wyo., 387 P.2d 1004. The parties having stipulated to continuances, the judgments of April 30, 1975, did not become final and appealable until the order denying 'Plaintiffs' Motions For a New Trial' was entered September 23, 1975. We have so held in Sun Land & Cattle Co., supra, at 387 P.2d 1006, where we said, speaking of judgments from which motions for new trial are filed:
'. . . (T)he judgment theretofore entered becomes effective for the purposes of the appeal as of the date that the motion for new trial is overruled either by action of the court or automatically because of inaction. . . .'
On May 30, 1975, a notice of appeal from the judgment of April 30, 1975, was filed by J. Kent Rutledge, Administrator. Since the motion for a new trial was then pending, the notice was premature and of no force and effect as the judgments were not then final and appealable. We said in Financial Management Corporation v. Wyoming Electric Sign Company, Wyo., 561 P.2d 237, 237-238:
Unlike Financial Management, supra, in the instant matter, a second notice of appeal was filed October 20, 1975, following the order denying the motion for a new trial. When this notice was filed, and under the above cited authorities, there was then no effective notice of appeal of record. The second notice reads:
'NOTICE OF APPEAL
'NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above-named plaintiffs hereby appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming from the Order Denying Motion for New Trial signed by Judge Maier on September 19, 1975, and entered in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of Platte County on September 23, 1975.
'Dated October 17th, 1975.' (Emphasis supplied)
An order denying a motion for a new trial is not an appealable order. In Sun Land & Cattle Co. v. Brown, supra, at 387 P.2d, page 1006, we said:
'. . . An order disposing of a motion for a new trial is not an appealable order. . . .' (Citing Kansas-Wyoming Oil Corporation v. Greaser, 58 Wyo. 24, 122 P.2d 840; Flint v. Voiles, 50 Wyo. 43, 58 P.2d 443; Tsoleas v. Hege, 4 Cir., 250 F.2d 127).
See also 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2818, p. 116; and State National Bank of El Paso v. United States, 5 Cir., 488 F.2d 890, 893 (1974).
In order for the second notice of appeal to have complied with jurisdictional requirements, it should have been filed-as it was-within 30 days of the entry of the order denying the motion for a new trial, but it should have notified of an appeal from the judgments entered April 30, 1975-not the order denying the motion for a new trial entered September 23, 1975.
As the judgments from which relief is sought are not properly before this court, we are forced to dismiss this appeal. Without a timely notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blake v. Rupe
...the 29 day of June 1981 at 5:30 P.M. has been set for Hearing of all of Defendants' Motions, * * *."3 We said in Rutledge v. VonFeldt, Wyo., 564 P.2d 350 at 351-352:"Without a timely notice of appeal from the judgment, we are without jurisdiction. Jackson v. State, Wyo., 547 P.2d 1203; Wyom......
-
Rust v. Clark County School Dist.
...to be premature and of no effect. See Pessolano v. George R. Price & Associates, 159 Ga.App. 340, 283 S.E.2d 317 (1981); Rutledge v. Vonfeldt, 564 P.2d 350 (Wyo.1977); see also Gulf Oil Co. v. Mantegna, 167 Ga.App. 844, 307 S.E.2d 732 (1983); Blanchette v. Martell, 52 Ill.App.3d 1029, 10 Il......
-
Lokey v. Irwin
...a number of cases, this Court has held that “[a]n order denying a motion for a new trial is not an appealable order.” Rutledge v. Vonfeldt, 564 P.2d 350, 351 (Wyo.1977) ; Sun Land & Cattle Co. v. Brown, 387 P.2d 1004, 1006 (Wyo.1964). This is because “[e]rror lies to the judgment, but not t......
-
Department of Revenue and Taxation v. Irvine
...court has consistently applied strict standards even though the application of detailed and complex reasoning is involved. Rutledge v. VonFelt, Wyo.1977, 564 P.2d 350; McMullen v. McMullen, Wyo.1977, 559 P.2d 37; Johnson v. Hauffe, Wyo.1977, 567 P.2d 735; Financial Management Corporation v.......