Austin v. Costantino

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Austin v. Costantino

2004 ME 92, 854 A.2d 216, 2004 Me. LEXIS 106

DecidedJuly 23, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 2004 ME 92 (Austin v. Costantino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin v. Costantino, 2004 ME 92, 854 A.2d 216, 2004 Me. LEXIS 106 (Me. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] Barbara and Donald Costantino appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J.) granting Sandra Austin an enlargement of time to complete a settlement agreement. Because a final judgment must “adjudicate the respective rights, duties, and liabilities of the various parties,” Murphy v. Maddaus, 2002 ME 24, ¶ 12, 789 A.2d 1281, 1284 (internal quotations omitted), there has been no final judgment, and we dismiss the Costantinos’ appeal as interlocutory.

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] Barbara and Donald Costantino appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J.) granting Sandra Austin an enlargement of time to complete a settlement agreement. Because a final judgment must “adjudicate the respective rights, duties, and liabilities of the various parties,” Murphy v. Maddaus, 2002 ME 24, ¶ 12, 789 A.2d 1281, 1284 (internal quotations omitted), there has been no final judgment, and we dismiss the Costantinos’ appeal as interlocutory.

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2004 ME 92, 854 A.2d 216, 2004 Me. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-costantino-me-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack