From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garner v. Decatur Utilities

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Feb 20, 1998
709 So. 2d 1309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998)

Opinion

2970072.

February 20, 1998.

Appeal from the Morgan Circuit Court, No. CV-97-226, Sherrie W. Brown, J.

William L. Hanbery, Florence, for appellant.

Albert L. Vreeland II of Lehr, Middlebrooks, Price Proctor, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.


Leonard D. Garner sued Decatur Utilities, seeking workers' compensation benefits and alleging retaliatory discharge. Decatur Utilities filed a motion to dismiss the retaliatory discharge claim; the trial court granted that motion. Garner appeals from that dismissal. Because his workers' compensation claim remains pending in the trial court, we must dismiss the appeal.

An appeal ordinarily lies only from a final judgment. Ala. Code 1975, § 12-22-2; Bean v. Craig, 557 So.2d 1249, 1253 (Ala. 1990). A judgment is generally not final unless all claims or the rights or liabilities of all parties have been decided. Ex parte Harris, 506 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987) (emphasis added). The only exception to this rule of finality is when the trial court directs the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Bean, 557 So.2d at 1253. This appeal is from the dismissal of one of Garner's two claims. Because the other claim remains pending, this court cannot now reach the merits of this case.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and YATES, MONROE, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Garner v. Decatur Utilities

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Feb 20, 1998
709 So. 2d 1309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998)
Case details for

Garner v. Decatur Utilities

Case Details

Full title:Leonard D. GARNER v. DECATUR UTILITIES, a board or department of the City…

Court:Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Feb 20, 1998

Citations

709 So. 2d 1309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Robbins v. Wildwood Creations, Inc.

MEMORANDUM OF JUNE 2, 2000, WITHDRAWN; MEMORANDUM SUBSTITUTED; APPLICATION OVERRULED; RULE 39(k) MOTION…

K.M.G. v. T.T.T. (Ex parte T.T.T.)

This court is concerned only with the .05 action, because that is the action regarding which the former…