Small v. General Motors Corp., 83CA1007
| Decision Date | 20 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83CA1007,83CA1007 |
| Citation | 694 P.2d 374 |
| Parties | Vernon SMALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and Ronald Mayer, Defendants-Appellees. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Keller, Dunievitz & Johnson, Alex Stephen Keller, Stephen W. Wahlberg, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Baker & Hostetler, James A. Clark, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff, Vernon Small, appeals the order of the trial court dismissing his amended complaint against defendants, General Motors and Ronald Mayer, for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Because Small's notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss the appeal.
The trial court order dismissing Small's amended complaint was entered in the register of actions on April 20, 1983. On June 2, 1983, and within the additional time allowed by the trial court, Small filed a "motion for reconsideration," which was denied on July 11, 1983. On August 16, another minute order appears in the register of actions showing judgment in favor of defendant against plaintiff and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint. On August 25, Small filed his notice of appeal of "the final judgment entered August 16, 1983."
The issue is whether the order of dismissal entered in the register of actions on April 20, 1983, is the final judgment in this case which triggers the time requirements of C.A.R. 4 or whether the final judgment subject to appeal is that entered in the register of actions on August 16, 1983. We hold that the order of dismissal entered on April 20, 1983, is the final judgment, and that the "motion for reconsideration" filed by Small operated as a motion to alter or amend judgment suspending the running of the time until the ruling of the trial court thereon. See C.A.R. 4(a). Hence, the denial of the motion for reconsideration on July 11, 1983, is the critical date for determining the timeliness of the notice of appeal. See Moore & Co. v. Williams, 672 P.2d 999 (Colo.1983).
Since, under the rule then applicable, only thirty days were permissible for the filing of the notice, and since there is no suggestion in this record that the principles announced in Converse v. Zinke, 635 P.2d 882 (Colo.1981) are applicable to the entry of the purported August 16 judgment, we conclude that the filing of the notice of appeal on August 25 was untimely.
The appeal is dismissed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Semler v. Hellerstein
...59, and conclude that this appeal is timely. See SMLL, L.L.C. v. Daly , 128 P.3d 266, 269 (Colo. App. 2005) ; Small v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 694 P.2d 374,375 (Colo. App. 1984).¶ 12 Here, the day after the court entered its order dismissing Semler's claims, Semler filed a motion for reconsider......
-
United Bank of Boulder, N.A. v. Buchanan
...60(b) motion, and since Uhre's C.R.C.P. 59 motion is, in effect, a request to reconsider that final order, see Small v. General Motors Corp., 694 P.2d 374 (Colo.App.1984) (C.R.C.P. 59 motion properly denominated as a "motion for reconsideration"), it suspends the time for filing the notice ......
-
Smll, L.L.C. v. Daly, 03CA1626.
...C.R.C.P. 59, it was timely filed under that rule as to the October 21, 2002 order, and we construe it as such. See Small v. Gen. Motors Corp., 694 P.2d 374 (Colo.App.1984). Accordingly, that motion tolled the limitations period for filing an appeal until it was denied by the trial court in ......
-
Stone v. People, 94CA0149
...motion to reconsider as a C.R.C.P. 59 motion to alter or amend findings or the judgment of the court. See Small v. General Motors Corp., 694 P.2d 374 (Colo.App.1984). Here, the district court denied Stone's petition on October 8, 1993, and mailed notice of its decision on that same day. The......
-
THE COLORADO APPELLATE RULES
...is final judgment and motion for reconsideration operated to suspend the running of time until the ruling thereon. Small v. Gen. Motors, 694 P.2d 374 (Colo. App. 1984). Failure to file timely notice of appeal requires dismissal. An appeal must be dismissed when appellant has failed to file ......
-
Rule 4 APPEAL AS OF RIGHT — WHEN TAKEN.
...is final judgment and motion for reconsideration operated to suspend the running of time until the ruling thereon. Small v. Gen. Motors, 694 P.2d 374 (Colo. App. 1984). Failure to file timely notice of appeal requires dismissal. An appeal must be dismissed when appellant has failed to file ......
-
Post-trial Motions in the Civil Case: an Appellate Perspective
...of Court of Appeals criticized naming of a post-trial motion as a "motion for reconsideration"). 8. In Small v. Gen. Motors Corp., 694 P.2d 374 1984), the court treated a "motion for reconsideration" of a final judgment as a C.R.C.P. 59 motion for purposes of calculating the time for filing......