Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds v. Utah Department of Transportation

Court of Appeals of Utah

Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds v. Utah Department of Transportation

2011 UT App 88, 250 P.3d 1037, 2011 WL 1049001

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedMarch 24, 2011

DocketCase No. 20110068-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 UT App 88 (Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds v. Utah Department of Transportation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds v. Utah Department of Transportation, 2011 UT App 88, 250 P.3d 1037, 2011 WL 1049001 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds and Stichting Mayflower Recreations Fonds (collectively Stichting) seek to appeal the district court's November 29, 2010 order. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a final order.

T 2 Generally, "(aln appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, 19, 5 P.3d 649. For an order or judgment to be final, it must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. 110. When an appeal is taken from a non-final order, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See id. 18. When this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, we have only the authority to dismiss the appeal. See Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App.1989). The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the cireumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (8) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, 1112, 5 P.8d 649.

'I 3 Stichting's notice of appeal is not taken from a final, appealable order. The district court denied Stichting's motion to certify the November 29, 2010 order as final pursuant to rule 54(b). Stichting fails to demonstrate that the order satisfies any exception to the final judgment rule. Because the appeal is taken from a non-final order, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and we have only the authority to dismiss the appeal. See Varian-Eimac, Inc., 767 P.2d at 570.

T4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order. 1

1

. It follows that Park City Municipal Corporation's motion for fees and double costs is denied without prejudice.

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

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

T1 Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds and Stichting Mayflower Recreations Fonds (collectively Stichting) seek to appeal the district court's November 29, 2010 order. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a final order.

T 2 Generally, "(aln appeal is improper if it is taken from an order or judgment that is not final." Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50, 19, 5 P.3d 649. For an order or judgment to be final, it must "dispose of all parties or claims to an action." Id. 110. When an appeal is taken from a non-final order, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See id. 18. When this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, we have only the authority to dismiss the appeal. See Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct.App.1989). The only exceptions to the final judgment rule are where: (1) an appeal is permitted under the cireumstances by statute, (2) the appellate court grants interlocutory appeal under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, or (8) the trial court certifies the order as final under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bradbury, 2000 UT 50, 1112, 5 P.8d 649.

'I 3 Stichting's notice of appeal is not taken from a final, appealable order. The district court denied Stichting's motion to certify the November 29, 2010 order as final pursuant to rule 54(b). Stichting fails to demonstrate that the order satisfies any exception to the final judgment rule. Because the appeal is taken from a non-final order, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and we have only the authority to dismiss the appeal. See Varian-Eimac, Inc., 767 P.2d at 570.

T4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a timely appeal from a final order. 1

1

. It follows that Park City Municipal Corporation's motion for fees and double costs is denied without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 UT App 88, 250 P.3d 1037, 2011 WL 1049001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stichting-mayflower-mountain-fonds-v-utah-department-of-transportation-utahctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack