Title: Colton v. Brann

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Colton v. Brann1990 WY 13786 P.2d 880Case Number: 90-14Decided: 02/06/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
PATSY COLTON, 

APPELLANT 
(PLAINTIFF),

v.

MARC BRANN, M.D., 

APPELLEE 
(DEFENDANT).

ORDER DISMISSING 
APPEAL

[¶1]      This case came 
before the Court on its own motion in connection with a consideration of the 
jurisdiction of this Court to hear the appeal, and the Court, having reviewed 
the file and records, finds as follows:

(1) The jury rendered a 
verdict in favor of the appellee and judgment was entered on that verdict on 
September 15, 1989.

(2) Appellant filed a 
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial on September 
21, 1989. This motion had the effect of extending the usual time for appeal 
until such time as the motions were denied or deemed denied. W.R.A.P. 2.01; and 
see W.R.C.P. 50(b) and W.R.C.P. 59(f).

(3) The district court 
denied appellant's motions on November 29, 1989.

(4) On December 14, 1989, 
appellee filed a notice of appeal, designating the order from which the appeal 
was taken as, "Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding The 
Verdict, And In the Alternative, Motion For A New Trial dated November 29, 
1989." The notice of appeal made no mention of the 
judgment.

[¶2]      The order from 
which the appeal was taken is not an appealable final order. In Sun Land & 
Cattle Co. v. Brown, 387 P.2d 1004, 1006 (Wyo. 1964), we held that an order 
disposing of a motion for new trial is not an appealable final order. We also 
held that a notice of appeal which designates both the final judgment, as well 
as the order denying a motion for new trial does not violate this rule. We 
iterated this rule in Rutledge v. Vonfeldt, 564 P.2d 350, 351-352 (Wyo. 1977), 
and further held that without a timely notice of appeal having been filed in a 
case, we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The time for filing a 
notice of appeal has long since passed in this case. We note further, that where 
alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial 
are denied by the district court, the appeal is from the judgment entered on the 
verdict. 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2540, p. 
617 (1971). In a recent unpublished order of this Court, we dismissed an appeal 
that was taken from an order denying a motion to alter or amend the judgment. 
Parker v. Kahin, 758 P.2d 570 (Wyo. 1988). There have been other instances where 
appeals have been dismissed based on the above-cited authorities. We find that 
the circumstances presented by this case are indistinguishable from those cases 
and authorities cited above and we are required to dismiss the appeal. We have 
chosen to publish this order as a means of reminding the practicing attorneys of 
this state of this important appellate rule. It is 
therefore,

[¶3]            
ORDERED that the appeal be, and it is hereby, dismissed.