Bean v. Rye

Supreme Court of Vermont

Bean v. Rye

349 A.2d 242, 133 Vt. 548, 1975 Vt. LEXIS 452

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedNovember 6, 1975

DocketNo. 129-75

StatusPublished

This text of 349 A.2d 242 (Bean v. Rye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bean v. Rye, 349 A.2d 242, 133 Vt. 548, 1975 Vt. LEXIS 452 (Vt. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the May, 1975, dismissal of two out of four defendants in a civil cause of action pending in the Rutland Superior Court. Virginia and Diane Rye were dismissed, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b), due to the complaint’s failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff now seeks review of that dismissal from this Court.

From the order it appears that the lower court did not, as per Rule 54 (b), make “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay”; nor did the court make “an express direction for the entry of judgment”, when it dismissed the two defendants. In the absence of such finding or direction, according to Rule 54(b), the order adjudicating fewer than all claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all parties does not terminate the action and is subject to revision before the entry of judgment adjudicating all claims.

In this case, without the prescribed determination or ex[549]*549press direction, the judgment is not final. Plaintiff, therefore, under this rule, presently has no appeal as a matter of right.

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with V.R.C.P. 54(b).

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the May, 1975, dismissal of two out of four defendants in a civil cause of action pending in the Rutland Superior Court. Virginia and Diane Rye were dismissed, pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b), due to the complaint’s failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff now seeks review of that dismissal from this Court.

From the order it appears that the lower court did not, as per Rule 54 (b), make “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay”; nor did the court make “an express direction for the entry of judgment”, when it dismissed the two defendants. In the absence of such finding or direction, according to Rule 54(b), the order adjudicating fewer than all claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all parties does not terminate the action and is subject to revision before the entry of judgment adjudicating all claims.

In this case, without the prescribed determination or ex[549]*549press direction, the judgment is not final. Plaintiff, therefore, under this rule, presently has no appeal as a matter of right.

Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with V.R.C.P. 54(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 A.2d 242, 133 Vt. 548, 1975 Vt. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bean-v-rye-vt-1975.