 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lang v. Nix3/23/2005
le are not the findings made by the court on the merits of the case but rather the findings as to why there is no just reason for delay and why final judgment should be entered. Stouffer v. Kralicek involved a purported Rule 54(b) certificate similar to the one here - it set forth the court's reasons for granting summary judgment rather than for entering a final judgment. We held that the certificate in Stouffer v. Kralicek was ineffective to certify the appeal because it lacked the specific factual findings contemplated by Rule 54(b).
The Rule 54(b) certificate in this case likewise does not conform to the dictates of the rule because it does not contain specific factual findings as to why an appeal should proceed at this point. It is therefore ineffective to certify appellant's appeal from what is essentially an order of partial summary judgment. As a result, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order.
Appeal dismissed.
|