Nevada Supreme Court
Taylor Construction Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
Taylor Construction Company, Appellant v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, Dba Las Vegas Hilton and Las Vegas…
100 Nev. 207 · 678 P.2d 1152
Decided March 30, 1984
Good LawGood law: 32 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The court dismissed the appeal because the denial of summary judgment was not appealable, and a certification under NRCP 54(b) could not make that interlocutory order final. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the order before entry of a final judgment.
Holdings
- Whether the denial of summary judgment, certified under NRCP 54(b), was appealable.. No. A denial of summary judgment that does not finally adjudicate a claim or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all parties is not appealable, and an NRCP 54(b) certification cannot create finality for an order that is not amenable to certification. *209
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
261 opinions cite this case
Cited
Vargas v. J Morales Inc., 2022 NV 38. citing to support that appellate jurisdiction must be authorized
Cited
Sheriff v. Facio (Mateo). citing Taylor Construction to support that jurisdiction requires statutory or rule authority
Cited
Shahrokhi Vs. Burrow (Child Custody). The opinion cites Taylor Constr. Co. for the principle that jurisdiction exists only when authorized by statute or rule.
Cited
Superpumper, Inc. Vs. Leonard. states jurisdiction exists only when authorized by statute or rule
Cited
Criswell Radovan, Llc Vs. Yount. Cites Taylor Construction Co. v. Hilton Hotels for the principle that such minute orders are not appealable.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for summary judgment. Respondents have moved to dismiss this appeal, contending that such an order is not appealable despite the certification of finality pursuant to NRCP 54(b). 1 We agree.
*209 NRAP 3A(b) designates the judgments and orders from which an appeal may be taken, and where no statutory authority to appeal is granted, no right exists. Kokkos v. Tsalikis, 91 Nev. 24, 530 P.2d 756 (1975). The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment under the rule. Smith v. Hamilton, 70 Nev. 212, 265 P.2d 214 (1953) (decided under indentical provision of former NRCP 72(b)).
The district court, upon motion by appellant, inserted the following language into the order denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there appearing no just cause for delay, this denial of the motion for summary judgment is certified as final for the purposes of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b).
The district court, through such certification, cannot create finality when the order is not amenable to certification. See Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Cherubini, 95 Nev. 293, 593 P.2d 1068 (1979); Las Vegas Hacienda v. G.L.M.M. Corp., 93 Nev. 177, 561 P.2d 1334 (1977). The district court does not have the power, even when a motion for certification is unopposed, to transform an interlocutory order which does not come within the rule, into a final judgment. An NRCP 54(b) certification is not available to provide interlocutory appellate review of an order which does not constitute a final adjudication of fewer than all claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties in an action. Painton & Company v. Bourns, Inc., 442 F.2d 216, 234 (2nd Cir. 1971). The order at issue in this appeal was a refusal by the district court to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of Taylor Construction Company and clearly is not a judgment which is amenable to certification pursuant to NRCP 54(b).
The district court was without authority to direct the entry of a final judgment as to the order from which this appeal is taken; therefore, the order is not appealable and we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
Appeal dismissed. 2
NRCP 54(b) provides in part:
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action ... the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims . . . only upon an express *209 determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. . . .
The erroneous certification by the trial court will not preclude appellant from raising its challenge to the order in a timely appeal from a final judgment. See Page v. Preisser, 585 F.2d 336 (8th Cir. 1978).
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Katherine Brown, Appellant v. Mhc Stagecoach, LLC, Respondent129 Nev. 343 (2013)
- Michael E. Love, Appellant v. Catherine L. Love, Respondent114 Nev. 572 (1998)
- Alejandro Jose Castillo, Appellant v. the State of Nevada, Respondent106 Nev. 349 (1990)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman460 U.S. 462 (1983)
- Hattie Rose Elam, Respondent v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Petitioner361 S.C. 9 (2004)