|
Warning: The following opinion is provided for purposes of discussion only. We have not Shepardized™ this opinion, and do not know the subsequent disposition of this case nor whether the effect of the opinion has been overruled or superceded by other law. Linkous v. Darch, COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. 1957.KY.40448; 299 S.W.2d 120 February 15, 1957 ELLIS LINKOUS, AN INFANT, BY HIS FATHER, NEXT FRIEND, AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, JAMES LINKOUS, APPELLANT, v. J. S. DARCH, APPELLEE, AND JEROLD LINKOUS, AN INFANT, BY HIS FATHER, NEXT FRIEND, AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, JAMES LINKOUS, APPELLANT, V. J. S. DARCH, APPELLEE. J. Douglas Graham, Campton, Beverly White, Winchester, for appellant. Hunter M. Shumate, Irvine, Rose & Short, Beattyville, H. T. Lisle, Winchester, Edward Jackson, Beattyville, for appellee. Joseph J. Leary, E. Gaines Davis, Jr., Smith Reed & Leary, Frankfort, amici curiae. Montgomery MONTGOMERY, Judge. Ellis Linkous, Jerold Linkous, and Hobart Spaulding, in separate actions, sued Rex Center, Bertie Center, J. S. Darch, and Blue Grass Butane Company. Raymond Moore and George Stamper, in separate actions, sued the Centers and Inez May. The five actions sought recovery of damages for personal injuries suffered by the claimants in an explosion of liquified petroleum gas. The jury found a verdict for Bertie Center and the butane company upon a consolidated trial in the Wolfe Circuit Court. The jurors were unable to agree on a verdict as to Rex Center and J. S. Darch. Inez May was a party in two of the actions because of an alleged fraudulent transfer of property. She was not involved in the cases insofar as liability for damages was concerned. The cases were transferred by an agreed order to the Clark Circuit Court for trial. At a pre-trial conference on September 20, 1955, the issues to be tried were defined as to Rex Center. At that conference, it was stipulated that the plaintiffs based their claim against J. S. Darch, appellee herein, upon his alleged violation of a regulation of the Department of Insurance issued under authority of KRS 234.140. Following this stipulation, appellee moved to reconsider his motion to dismiss the complaint as to him. The trial court entered the following order: "* * * the motion of defendant Darch to dismiss the complaints of each of the plaintiffs as to him should be and each of said motions are hereby sustained and the complaint of each of the plaintiffs as to the defendant Darch are now and hereby dismissed."
A consolidated trial of the five actions as to Rex Center was had on September 20-23, 1955. The jury, by a verdict, awarded aggregate damages of $73,000 in favor of the five claimants against Center. Judgments entered on this verdict were affirmed. See Center v. Linkous, and consolidated cases, Ky., 295 S.W.2d 567. Darch was not a party to that appeal. After the verdict in the Center trial, further action on the Center branch of the cases was delayed, pending a ruling on a motion which was overruled on December 5, 1955. Center then filed notices of appeal on December 12, 1955, and January 3, 1956. His designation of record on appeal in each case was filed January 20, 1956. The records were filed with the Clerk of this Court on March 14, 1956. The cases were submitted on June 15, 1956, and the opinion was delivered on November 9, 1956. Nothing in the records on the Center appeals indicated that any further action had been taken on the pre-trial order of dismissal as to Darch. The two records under consideration at present do not indicate what disposition was made of the cases as to Center. The steps taken in the two branches of the cases have been detailed in order that a better understanding may be had of this unique development. The relation of the appeals on the two branches of the cases was first noted upon a study of these records. On this consolidated appeal, the validity of the Department of Insurance regulation is sought to be upheld. In our view, it is unnecessary to consider the argument presented by appellants. The pre-trial conference order of dismissal is not an appealable order. The action was still pending against Center without a final adjudication at that time. The trial court failed to determine that there was no just reason for delay in granting final judgment. The order of dismissal contained no recital of such determination or that it was final. In the absence of such determination and such recitals in the order appealed from, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. CR 54.02; Turner Construction Co. v. Smith Brothers, Inc., Ky., 295 S.W.2d 569. See Derby Road Building Co., Inc., v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co., Ky., 299 S.W.2d 122. The interpretation of the corresponding Federal rule is in accord. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 54(b), 28 U.S.C.A. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297; Scarf v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 2 Cir., 233 F.2d 176; Roberts v. American Newspaper Guild, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 188 F.2d 650; David v. District of Columbia, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 187 F.2d 204. The confusion arising from piecemeal appeals is made apparent by the records in this case. It could have been confounded more, however, if a third appeal had been sought from the judgment of the Wolfe Circuit Court in favor of Bertie Center and Blue Grass Butane Company. The appeals are dismissed. The legal opinions are a matter of public record (that's how we got them), and as such there can be no defamation for republishing them. Sometimes, however, legal opinions are reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, etc., and we do not discover this fact until somebody points it out to us. As we do not desire to publish inaccurate or outdated information, if a legal opinion has been reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, please advise us of this fact immediately, by fax to (877) 698-0678 or you may also send regular postal correspondence to Riser Adkisson LLP at 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 200, Atlanta GA 30339. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nothing in this website is any substitute for the legal advice or opinion of a licensed attorney in your state. This website is simply a starting resource for information on the topics herein and does not claim to provide any definitive answer and should not be relied upon for any purposes whatsoever. Non-professionals should seek the assistance of a licensed attorney in their jurisdictions, and professionals should please consult the primary source materials such as statutes and case laws directly. Nothing in this website may be relied upon under IRS Circular 230 to avoid penalties for an incorrect tax position. Adkisson Publishing Inc. is not a law firm and does not provide any legal service of any nature whatsoever. Adkisson Publishing Inc. is a publisher of books, websites and provides speakers on various topics. The person responsible for this website is Jay D. Adkisson in his capacity of President of Adkisson Publishing Inc. and questions regarding it should be addressed to him at Adkisson Publishing, Inc., P.O. Box 7088, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677.
Captive Insurance -- Equity-Indexed Annuities -- Accounts Receivable Financing |
Proud Supporter of Quatloos.com