Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

CHARLES (CHUCK) MOLLE, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT BELOW), ALCO RANCH, A PARTNERSHIP, WOODROW M. (MIKE) HEDLUND AND AL SMITH III, (DEFENDANTS BELOW), v. IBERLIN RANCH, A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF JOHN P. IBERLIN, SR., JOHN P. IBERLIN, JR., STEVEN MARK IBERLIN AND JAMES M. IBERLIN TRUST, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS BELOW).

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Upon examination of the record, the Court finds that there is no final adjudication as to the rights of one or more of the parties in that no judgment has been rendered as to the remaining causes of action put forth in the plaintiff's complaint. Nor have the cross claims of the defendant Charles Molle been addressed so as to thereby state that his rights have been adjudicated.

This Court has in the past stated that no appeal will lie from an order granting a partial summary judgment as such is not a final order under Rule 54(b), W.R.C.P. Hayes v. Nielson, Wyo., 568 P.2d 905 (1977).

Furthermore, this Court has stated that despite an express determination by the trial court that there is no just reason for delay, this Court will not consider piecemeal appeals. Mott v. England, Wyo., 604 P.2d 560, 563 (1979); Butts v. Gierse, Wyo., 573 P.2d 1365 (1978).

On the Court's own motion, pursuant to Rule 1.02, W.R.A.P., it is

ORDERED that the above-captioned appeal be and is dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MOLLE v. IBERLIN RANCH
(Aug 12, 1980)