State v. Powell

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Powell

725 A.2d 301, 168 Vt. 636, 1998 Vt. LEXIS 478

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedDecember 21, 1998

DocketNo. 98-303

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 725 A.2d 301 (State v. Powell) 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

State v. Powell, 725 A.2d 301, 168 Vt. 636, 1998 Vt. LEXIS 478 (Vt. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s counsel in this criminal case seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw. Because the order he seeks to appeal from is not a final appeal-able order, the appeal is dismissed. See In re Burlington Bagel Bakery, Inc., 150 Vt. 20, 21, 549 A.2d 1044, 1045 (1988) (final and appealable order must end litigation on merits or conclusively determine rights of parties, leaving nothing for court to do but execute judgment); Messih v. Lee Drug, Inc., 220 Cal. Rptr. 43, 45 (Ct. App. 1985) (ruling on attorney’s motion to withdraw is nonappealable interim order); cf. Chaker v. Chaker, 147 Vt. 548, 548 n.*, 520 A.2d 1005, 1006 n.* (1986) (applying VR.A.E 2 to review as interlocutory appeal trial court’s ruling on attorney’s motion to withdraw); 19 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 202.11[8][b], at 61 (3d ed. 1998) (given related decisions by United States Supreme Court, orders denying disqualification of attorneys in criminal cases are most likely not appeal-able under final judgment rule).

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

Defendant’s counsel in this criminal case seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw. Because the order he seeks to appeal from is not a final appeal-able order, the appeal is dismissed. See In re Burlington Bagel Bakery, Inc., 150 Vt. 20, 21, 549 A.2d 1044, 1045 (1988) (final and appealable order must end litigation on merits or conclusively determine rights of parties, leaving nothing for court to do but execute judgment); Messih v. Lee Drug, Inc., 220 Cal. Rptr. 43, 45 (Ct. App. 1985) (ruling on attorney’s motion to withdraw is nonappealable interim order); cf. Chaker v. Chaker, 147 Vt. 548, 548 n.*, 520 A.2d 1005, 1006 n.* (1986) (applying VR.A.E 2 to review as interlocutory appeal trial court’s ruling on attorney’s motion to withdraw); 19 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 202.11[8][b], at 61 (3d ed. 1998) (given related decisions by United States Supreme Court, orders denying disqualification of attorneys in criminal cases are most likely not appeal-able under final judgment rule).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 A.2d 301, 168 Vt. 636, 1998 Vt. LEXIS 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-powell-vt-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack