Case ID: or-app_64/html/0503-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted April 20,
    appeal dismissed September 14, 1983
    YORK, Appellant, v. SPRINGFIELD TOYOTA, INC., Respondent.
    
    (L78-2767; CA A23991)
    669 P2d 331
    James C. Farrell, Roseburg, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    Scott M. Galenbeck, Springfield, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Wiswall, Svoboda, Thorp & Dennett, Springfield.
    Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals a directed verdict granted at the close of her case in favor of defendant Springfield Toyota, Inc. Because the judgment was not appealable at the time she filed her notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

After the directed verdict in favor of defendant Springfield Toyota, the case continued against defendant Oregon Adjusters Eugene, Inc. The jury returned its verdict in plaintiffs favor on February 24, 1982. On March 4,1982, the court entered judgment on the directed verdict in favor of defendant Springfield Toyota. The judgment did not include an express determination that there was no just reason for delay nor an express direction for the entry of judgment. Therefore, it was not final and appealable at that time. ORCP 67B; ORS 19.010. On March 22, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from that judgment. On March 25, the court entered a second judgment on the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff against defendant Oregon Adjusters Eugene, Inc. That judgment resolved all the remaining issues in the case and the judgment entered March 4 became appealable. Plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal within the statutory period after the entry of the March 25 judgment. There being no proper appeal from an appealable order, there is nothing before this court.

Appeal dismissed.