Title: JOHN SCOTT and JEANNE WAGNER as Personal Representatives of the Estate of JACK A. SCOTT V. MICHAEL DAVID SUTPHIN, M.D.,

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

JOHN SCOTT and JEANNE WAGNER as Personal Representatives of the Estate of JACK A. SCOTT V. MICHAEL DAVID SUTPHIN, M.D.,2005 WY 38109 P.3d 520Case Number: 04-102Decided: 04/07/2005
I

 
 
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
                                                                                                            

 
 
JOHN 
SCOTT and JEANNE WAGNER as

Personal 
Representatives of the Estate of

JACK A. 
SCOTT,

 
 
Appellants

(Plaintiffs),

 
 
v.

 
 
MICHAEL 
DAVID SUTPHIN, M.D.,

 
 
Appellee

(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal from theDistrictCourtofSweetwaterCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

G. Bryan 
Ulmer, III, R. Daniel Fleck, and Emily R. Rankin of The Spence Law Firm, LLC, 
Spence, Shockey & McCalla, Jackson, Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Ulmer.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

George 
E. Powers, Jr., of Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, Cheyenne, Wyoming

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, and VOIGT, JJ., and KALOKATHIS and DONNELL, 
D.JJ.

  

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]          
Appellants 
claim to appeal from a jury verdict in a wrongful death action.  The only notice of appeal filed with 
this Court, however, appeals the denial by the trial court of Appellants' 
"Motion for Additur Or In The Alternative Motion For A New Trial."  Such an order is not an appealable 
order.  See Rutledge v. 
Vonfeldt, 564 P.2d 350 (Wyo. 1977) (order denying motion for 
new trial not appealable and appeal therefrom does not constitute appeal from 
judgment so appeal dismissed).  

 
 

[¶2]          
Earlier 
in this appeal, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds of 
lack of jurisdiction precisely because the notice of appeal was from a 
nonappealable order.  In response to 
this motion to dismiss, Appellants argued that this Court should overlook this 
technical violation and allow the appeal to proceed as if the judgment had been 
properly appealed.  This Court, 
acknowledging that there appears to be a recent trend not to stand on 
technicalities and treat a notice of appeal in these circumstances as if it were 
an appeal of the judgment, denied the motion to dismiss.

 
 

[¶3]          
After 
the presentation of oral argument, and after further review of all briefs filed 
in this action, this Court has decided that its earlier denial of the Appellee's 
motion to dismiss was in error.  In 
the final analysis, Appellants never appealed the judgment in the wrongful death 
action.  Never before has this Court 
held that the absence of a proper notice of appeal was simply a harmless 
technical lapse.  We decline 
Appellants' invitation to so casually rewrite the firmly established 
jurisdictional rules of this Court.  
Therefore, this Court holds that it has no jurisdiction to hear this 
appeal.  Rutledge v. 
Vonfeldt, 564 P.2d 350 (Wyo. 1977); 
Colton v. Brann, 786 P.2d 880 (Wyo. 1990) ("an order disposing of a motion 
for a new trial is not an appealable final order" and the appeal must be from 
the judgment entered on the verdict in order to bestow jurisdiction upon this 
Court to hear the appeal).  This 
appeal is dismissed.