Burleson v. American Security Bank, N.A.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Burleson v. American Security Bank, N.A.

461 A.2d 458, 1983 D.C. App. LEXIS 369

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 5, 1983

Docket82-927

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 461 A.2d 458 (Burleson v. American Security Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burleson v. American Security Bank, N.A., 461 A.2d 458, 1983 D.C. App. LEXIS 369 (D.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

NEBEKER, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from an award of $500 attorney’s fees granted pursuant to appellee’s Motion for Award of Expenses under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 37(a)(4). This action was taken after the trial court granted appellee’s earlier Motion for Order Compelling Discovery under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 37(a). The underlying action in this case remained pending in the Superior Court while this purported appeal was taken. We hold that the interlocutory order granting expenses is not appealable as either a collateral one which could not be reviewed on final judgment or a judgment which is final except for ministerial acts. Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944 (3d Cir.1981); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72 (Em.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832, 101 S.Ct. 102, 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); Cromaglass Corp. v. Fern, 500 F.2d 601 (3d Cir.1974) (en banc). But see Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir.1978). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice.

On consideration of appellee’s request for the imposition of further expenses, we award an additional $500 against appellant in favor of appellee. See Tupling v. Britton, 411 A.2d 349 (D.C.1980).

So ordered.

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

NEBEKER, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from an award of $500 attorney’s fees granted pursuant to appellee’s Motion for Award of Expenses under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 37(a)(4). This action was taken after the trial court granted appellee’s earlier Motion for Order Compelling Discovery under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 37(a). The underlying action in this case remained pending in the Superior Court while this purported appeal was taken. We hold that the interlocutory order granting expenses is not appealable as either a collateral one which could not be reviewed on final judgment or a judgment which is final except for ministerial acts. Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, 658 F.2d 944 (3d Cir.1981); Evanson v. Union Oil Co. of California, 619 F.2d 72 (Em.App.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 832, 101 S.Ct. 102, 66 L.Ed.2d 38 (1980); Cromaglass Corp. v. Fern, 500 F.2d 601 (3d Cir.1974) (en banc). But see Ohio v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir.1978). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice.

On consideration of appellee’s request for the imposition of further expenses, we award an additional $500 against appellant in favor of appellee. See Tupling v. Britton, 411 A.2d 349 (D.C.1980).

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

461 A.2d 458, 1983 D.C. App. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burleson-v-american-security-bank-na-dc-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack