Appeals (To Supreme Court): Certification for Appeal

Kessel v. Liberty [07/10/06] 2006 MTWCC 28 With respect to Rule 54(b) certification, the Montana Supreme Court has held that the lower court must do more than “merely recite the magic words” in certifying a case, but “must clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying its decision to order a Rule 54(b) certification.” Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, ¶ 14, 317 Mont. 413, 77 P.3d 531.

Kessel v. Liberty [07/10/06] 2006 MTWCC 28 Adopting the guiding principles for Rule 54(b) certification that the Montana Supreme Court set forth in Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, ¶ 16, 317 Mont. 413, 77 P.3d 531, this Court determined an order of certification is appropriate in a case in which Respondent’s motion for summary judgment was denied where the parties agreed this is the “infrequent harsh case” meriting a favorable exercise of jurisdiction, certification is in the interest of sound judicial administration and public policy, and the five factors articulated in Kohler, ¶ 15, which an appellate court will normally consider in determining whether certification is proper, also favor certification.

Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mutual [07/12/06] 2006 MTWCC 29 Although Rule 54(b), Mont. R. Civ. P., authorizes the Court to certify certain issues as final for purposes of appeal when remaining issues in the case have not been resolved, the Montana Supreme Court has stated that a court must justify such a certification when other issues remain unresolved. Kohler v. Croonenberghs, 2003 MT 260, 317 Mont. 413, 77 P.3d 531.