Title: Cassidy v. City of Bangor

State: maine

Issuer: Maine Supreme Court

Document:

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
 
 
 
     
    Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2014 ME 44 
Docket: 
Pen-13-374 
 
Submitted 
  On Briefs: 
February 27, 2014 
Decided: 
March 18, 2014 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ. 
 
 
SHARON CASSIDY 
 
v.  
 
CITY OF BANGOR et al. 
 
 
 
MEAD, J. 
 
[¶1]  Sharon Cassidy appeals from the Superior Court’s (Penobscot, 
Anderson, J.) order accepting findings issued by the Bangor Planning Board 
nunc pro tunc and granting Cassidy forty days to consider the findings and file an 
amended brief in support of her 80B appeal.  We dismiss Cassidy’s appeal as 
interlocutory. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
[¶2]  In 2012, Harvey Sprague submitted an application to the Board seeking 
approval to open and operate a quarry on Union Street in Bangor’s Rural 
Residence and Agricultural District.  The Board considered Sprague’s application 
during its March 6, 2012, meeting, at which several residents of Bangor, including 
Cassidy, spoke in opposition to the proposed quarry.  At the conclusion of the 
 
2 
meeting, the Board approved Sprague’s application by a 7-0 vote and notified 
Sprague of its decision by letter the next day. 
 
[¶3]  On April 3, Cassidy filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the 
Board’s decision pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B.  In her complaint, she listed the 
Board’s failure to make findings of fact as one of the grounds for her appeal.  In 
response, the Board approved and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law to 
accompany its May 8 approval letter.  On July 11, the court issued an order on 
Cassidy’s complaint, accepting the findings of the Board retroactively and granting 
Cassidy forty days to consider the findings and file an amended brief.  Cassidy 
filed this appeal. 
II.  DISCUSSION 
 
[¶4]  The final-judgment rule prevents us from considering an interlocutory 
appeal unless the appeal falls within an exception.  See Bruesewitz v. Grant, 2007 
ME 13, ¶ 5, 912 A.2d 1255.  There are three exceptions to the final judgment rule: 
the judicial economy exception, the collateral order exception, and the death knell 
exception.  Id. ¶¶ 5-8.  None, however, apply to the interlocutory appeal of the 
procedural order in this case.  See Bond v. Bond, 2011 ME 105, ¶ 6, 30 A.3d 816. 
 
[¶5]  The judicial economy exception allows appellate review of an 
interlocutory order if resolution of the appeal would establish a final disposition of 
the entire litigation and “the interests of justice require that an immediate review be 
 
3 
undertaken.”  Bruesewitz, 2007 ME 13, ¶ 6, 912 A.2d 1255.  Here, addressing the 
merits of Cassidy’s appeal would have the opposite effect—if we remand the case 
to the Board, as Cassidy suggests, duplicate litigation will certainly result and a 
final disposition will be delayed. 
 
[¶6]  The collateral order exception allows the appeal of an interlocutory 
order “where (1) that order involves a claim separable from and collateral to the 
gravamen of the lawsuit; (2) it presents a major and unsettled question of law; and 
(3) there would be irreparable loss of the rights claimed in absence of immediate 
review.”  Id. ¶ 7 (quotation marks omitted).  Only the second factor could arguably 
apply here.  The order does not involve a claim that is separable and collateral to 
the gravamen of the lawsuit, and Cassidy will lose nothing by pursuing a final 
judgment and litigating the merits of the accepted findings. 
[¶7]  Similarly, the death knell exception does not apply because Cassidy 
has not demonstrated that a “substantial right” will be lost if review is delayed until 
final judgment.  Id. ¶ 8.  To the contrary, if the relief Cassidy requests is granted, a 
disposition on the merits of her case will be substantially delayed. 
 
[¶8]  Because Cassidy’s appeal does not fall within any of the exceptions to 
the final judgment rule, it must be dismissed. 
 
The entry is: 
 
Appeal dismissed as interlocutory. 
 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Roy T. Pierce, Esq., Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, 
Portland, for appellant Sharon Cassidy 
 
Paul S. Nicklas, Esq., Asst. City Solicitor, City of Bangor, 
Bangor, for appellee City of Bangor 
 
Hunter J. Tzovarras, Esq., Law Office of Hunter J. Tzovarras, 
Bangor, for appellee Harvey Sprague 
 
 
 
Penobscot County Superior Court docket number AP-2012-5 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY