Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Copenhaver v. Geier

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1993No. Civ. 930140Published

1ConcurrenceNeumann, Justice

I concur in the result. I would not, however, impose a requirement for a Rule 54(b) certification on an appeal from an order granting or denying a change of venue. I would simply hold that such an interlocutory order is not appealable.

I would not impose a Rule 54(b) requirement because Rule 54(b), closely read, applies only to cases in which there are multiple parties or multiple claims for relief, and in which the trial court is able to direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims. In the present case, the defendant has asserted no counterclaims against…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. White v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1889
  2. Fritz v. HassanNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API