Bouchard v. Rozario

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Bouchard v. Rozario

506 A.2d 1159, 1986 Me. LEXIS 738

DecidedMarch 25, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 506 A.2d 1159 (Bouchard v. Rozario) 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

Bouchard v. Rozario, 506 A.2d 1159, 1986 Me. LEXIS 738 (Me. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff Patrick Bouchard appeals from the summary judgment entered by the Superior Court (Penobscot County) in favor of defendant Dr. Rodney Rozario. The trial court certified its action as a final judgment pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 54(b), stating “Interest of justice — no good reason for delay.” At that time, however, a statute of limitations defense similar to that raised by defendant Rozario was being asserted by two of his codefendants and had not been adjudicated. We must dismiss plaintiff’s appeal for the lack of a final judgment, because the trial court failed to include a “brief reasoned statement supporting [its] decision to enter a Rule 54(b) certification” as required by Cole v. Peterson Realty, Inc., 432 A.2d 752, 757 (Me.1981).

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff Patrick Bouchard appeals from the summary judgment entered by the Superior Court (Penobscot County) in favor of defendant Dr. Rodney Rozario. The trial court certified its action as a final judgment pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 54(b), stating “Interest of justice — no good reason for delay.” At that time, however, a statute of limitations defense similar to that raised by defendant Rozario was being asserted by two of his codefendants and had not been adjudicated. We must dismiss plaintiff’s appeal for the lack of a final judgment, because the trial court failed to include a “brief reasoned statement supporting [its] decision to enter a Rule 54(b) certification” as required by Cole v. Peterson Realty, Inc., 432 A.2d 752, 757 (Me.1981).

The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 A.2d 1159, 1986 Me. LEXIS 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouchard-v-rozario-me-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack