Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

365 So. 2d 658

Goza v. Everett

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 22, 1978

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1978-12-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“an express determination that there is no just reason for delay”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 666 So. 2d 5 - Moore v. Moore, Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Distajo

“for the purposes of preclusion. Under Alabama law, an order entered upon less than all of the claims presented in an action is a final, appealable order if”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Distajo

Relies on Gray v. Bradford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-12-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2000

1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

401978198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2This appeal is to be dismissed because the judgment appealed from is not a final order under Rule 54 (b) ARCP.

¶3Plaintiff Everett filed a civil action in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County against defendants Goza and Bonnie Mills, Inc. seeking specific performance of a contract to convey real property and damages. Defendants demanded a jury trial, and in an amended answer counterclaimed against Everett. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied. Plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' jury demand was granted as to the claim for specific performance. The trial judge entered an order on his bench notes on January 30, 1978, which read as follows:

¶4 "The court this date entered a ruling in favor of the plaintiff in regard to the non-jury issue of specific performance. Remaining issues are to be tried to a jury. See order in file. Randall L. Cole, Judge."

¶5When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, an order entered upon less than all of the claims is not a final, appealable order unless the judge makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay pursuant to Rule 54 (b) ARCP. No such determination is found in the record.

¶6The claim for monetary damages was not disposed of, but that issue was specifically reserved "to be tried to a jury." The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed. Chambers v. Chambers,356 So.2d 634, 12 ABR 872 (Ala. 1978).

¶7APPEAL DISMISSED.

¶8TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

/365/so2d/658 · .json · Public domain