Kwasnik v. Walsh

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Kwasnik v. Walsh

2004 ME 91, 854 A.2d 222, 2004 Me. LEXIS 101

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 23, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2004 ME 91 (Kwasnik v. Walsh) 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

Kwasnik v. Walsh, 2004 ME 91, 854 A.2d 222, 2004 Me. LEXIS 101 (Me. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] Marek A. Kwasnik appeals from the denial by the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Crowley, J.) of his motion for leave to present additional evidence. Kwasnik filed a petition, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, for review of a decision of the Department of Human Services, which upheld an administrative action to revoke his driver’s license for nonpayment of a child support order. See 19-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2201 and 3102 (1998 and Supp. 2003). He timely filed a motion to present additional evidence, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C(e), and the Department filed an objection. Upon the court’s denial of the motion, Kwasnik filed this appeal.

[¶ 2] There is no question that Kwasnik’s appeal is interlocutory. There is no final judgment on his petition for review of governmental action. None of the exceptions to the final judgment rule that allow a party to appeal an interlocutory ruling apply to this situation. See Austin v. Universal Cheerleaders Ass’n, 2002 ME 174, ¶¶ 4-9, 812 A.2d 253, 255-56. Because it is interlocutory, Kwasnik’s appeal must be dismissed.

[223]*223The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] Marek A. Kwasnik appeals from the denial by the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Crowley, J.) of his motion for leave to present additional evidence. Kwasnik filed a petition, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C, for review of a decision of the Department of Human Services, which upheld an administrative action to revoke his driver’s license for nonpayment of a child support order. See 19-A M.R.S.A. §§ 2201 and 3102 (1998 and Supp. 2003). He timely filed a motion to present additional evidence, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C(e), and the Department filed an objection. Upon the court’s denial of the motion, Kwasnik filed this appeal.

[¶ 2] There is no question that Kwasnik’s appeal is interlocutory. There is no final judgment on his petition for review of governmental action. None of the exceptions to the final judgment rule that allow a party to appeal an interlocutory ruling apply to this situation. See Austin v. Universal Cheerleaders Ass’n, 2002 ME 174, ¶¶ 4-9, 812 A.2d 253, 255-56. Because it is interlocutory, Kwasnik’s appeal must be dismissed.

[223]*223The entry is:

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2004 ME 91, 854 A.2d 222, 2004 Me. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kwasnik-v-walsh-me-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack