Case Title: McCabe v. Berdon

Citation: 681 P.2d 571

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 1984-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
681 P.2d 571 (1984) Katrinca M. McCABE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George BERDON, Jr. and George Berdon, Sr., Defendants, and County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works and State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division, Defendants-Appellees. No. 9094. Supreme Court of Hawaii. May 21, 1984. *572 Radcliffe Welles, Kailua-Kona (Richard L. Tretheway on the briefs, Tretheway & Olmstead, Kailua-Kona, of counsel), for appellant. Thomas L.H. Yeh, Hilo, Deputy Corp. Counsel, for appellee County of Hawaii. James W. Laseter, Honolulu, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee State. Before LUM, C.J., NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ. PADGETT, Justice. This is an interlocutory appeal allowed from judgments in favor of the State of Hawaii and the County of Hawaii pursuant to summary judgment orders disposing of all claims against those two defendants-appellees by the plaintiff-appellant. The two orders appealed from each stated: The transcript of the hearing at which the motions for summary judgment were originally orally granted contains the following: An interlocutory appeal is allowable under HRS § 641-1(b) only where "the circuit court may think the same advisable for the speedy termination of litigation before it." As we have said: Lui v. City & County, 63 Haw. 668, 671-72, 634 P.2d 595 (1981). Here, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial judge determined that an interlocutory appeal from the orders entered would more speedily terminate the litigation. He simply said he would allow an interlocutory appeal without expressing any determination on the matter. It may well be that the trial judge was thinking of a certification pursuant to the provisions of Rule 54(b), HRCP. The orders in question were certainly capable of such certification. However, the necessary *573 determination that there was no just cause for delay and the recital thereof, along with the express direction for the entry of judgment, are missing from the record and the orders appealed from. We ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda on the question of whether an interlocutory appeal pursuant to HRS § 641-1(b) could be allowed in a situation where the claims adjudicated were capable of being certified, and thus made final, upon a proper finding and direction, under Rule 54(b), HRCP. We, however, cannot reach that issue in this case since the court below made neither the necessary finding under § 641-1(b) nor the necessary finding and direction under Rule 54(b), HRCP. Appeal dismissed.