Anderson v. State

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1984

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1984-02-23

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2024

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Because the requirement of Rule 54(b) that ‘the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims qr parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment’ has not been met, the judgment is not final, but ‘is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.’ The partial disposition embodied in the judgment appealed from therefore is not ripe for review.” (Citation omitted.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Martinson v. Raugutt

Relies on Striegel v. Dakota Hills, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-02-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The State, doing business as the Bank of North Dakota, has appealed from a judgment that only partially disposes of an action in which “more than one claim for relief is presented.” Rule 54(b), N.D.R. Civ.P.

¶2Because the requirement of Rule 54(b) that “the court may direct the entry of a *490final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment” has not been met, the judgment is not final, but “is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.” The partial disposition embodied in the judgment appealed from therefore is not ripe for review. Striegel v. Dakota Hills, Inc., 343 N.W.2d 785 (N.D.1984).

¶3The appeal is dismissed.

ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, PEDERSON, GIERKE and SAND, JJ., concur.