Lloyd v. Lloyd

Idaho Supreme Court

Lloyd v. Lloyd

503 P.2d 308, 95 Idaho 108, 1972 Ida. LEXIS 263

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1972

Docket11067

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 503 P.2d 308 (Lloyd v. Lloyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lloyd v. Lloyd, 503 P.2d 308, 95 Idaho 108, 1972 Ida. LEXIS 263 (Idaho 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claiming to be the holder of a life estate in certain real property occupied by the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent commenced this action to obtain possession of the realty and to recover damages. Upon the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the district court entered what it termed a “partial summary judgment”; the defendant appeals therefrom, contending that the court resolved genuine issues of material fact in reaching its decision.

This Court may, on its own motion, dismiss an appeal from an unappealable intermediate order or decision. State ex rel. State Board of Medicine v. Smith, 80 Idaho 267, 328 P.2d 581 (1958); Coeur d’Alene Turf Club, Inc. v. Cogswell, 93 Idaho 324, 331, 461 P.2d 107 (1969) (Mc-Quade, J., dissenting). An interlocutory summary judgment, authorized by I.R.C.P. 56(c), is not appealable in Idaho. Clear v. Marvin, 83 Idaho 399, 363 P.2d 355 (1961) (per curiam); I.C. § 13-201. Similarly, where, as in this case, the summary judgment provides for “any further relief deemed just by the Court,” it is generally not appealable. Perkins v. City of Pocatello, 92 Idaho 636, 448 P.2d 250 (1968).

The interlocutory character of the summary judgment appealed from in this case is indicated not only by the fact that the district court termed it “partial” but also by the court’s provision for any further relief deemed just; as the appellant recognizes in his brief, the issue of damages was not resolved by the judgment entered. The “partial summary judgment” appealed from contemplates further proceedings in district court and, therefore, it is not a final judgment. Under the circumstances, the appeal in this case is premature, and review of the court’s decision must await final judgment in the case. Perkins v. City of Pocatello, supra; Clear v. Marvin, supra; I.C. § 13-219.

Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Claiming to be the holder of a life estate in certain real property occupied by the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent commenced this action to obtain possession of the realty and to recover damages. Upon the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the district court entered what it termed a “partial summary judgment”; the defendant appeals therefrom, contending that the court resolved genuine issues of material fact in reaching its decision.

This Court may, on its own motion, dismiss an appeal from an unappealable intermediate order or decision. State ex rel. State Board of Medicine v. Smith, 80 Idaho 267, 328 P.2d 581 (1958); Coeur d’Alene Turf Club, Inc. v. Cogswell, 93 Idaho 324, 331, 461 P.2d 107 (1969) (Mc-Quade, J., dissenting). An interlocutory summary judgment, authorized by I.R.C.P. 56(c), is not appealable in Idaho. Clear v. Marvin, 83 Idaho 399, 363 P.2d 355 (1961) (per curiam); I.C. § 13-201. Similarly, where, as in this case, the summary judgment provides for “any further relief deemed just by the Court,” it is generally not appealable. Perkins v. City of Pocatello, 92 Idaho 636, 448 P.2d 250 (1968).

The interlocutory character of the summary judgment appealed from in this case is indicated not only by the fact that the district court termed it “partial” but also by the court’s provision for any further relief deemed just; as the appellant recognizes in his brief, the issue of damages was not resolved by the judgment entered. The “partial summary judgment” appealed from contemplates further proceedings in district court and, therefore, it is not a final judgment. Under the circumstances, the appeal in this case is premature, and review of the court’s decision must await final judgment in the case. Perkins v. City of Pocatello, supra; Clear v. Marvin, supra; I.C. § 13-219.

Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

503 P.2d 308, 95 Idaho 108, 1972 Ida. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lloyd-v-lloyd-idaho-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack