Dept. of Human Servs. on Behalf of Herd v. Hart, 639 A.2d 107 (Me. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Dept. of Human Servs. on Behalf of Herd v. Hart, 639 A.2d 107 (Me. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carol Cutting v. Down East Orthopedic Associates, P.A. (me, 2021-01-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carol Cutting v. Down East Orthopedic Associates, P.A.
Me. · 2021 · confidence medium
Servs. v. Hart, 639 A.2d 107, 107-08 (Me. 1994) (dismissing an interlocutory appeal “because we ha[d] not yet resolved the question whether res judicata would apply in the circumstances of th[e] case”). [¶18] “Generally, we invoke the judicial economy exception when there are particularly unique circumstances in the history of a case such as exceedingly long litigation, multiple pending proceedings involving the same party, or litigation subject to inordinate delay.” Quirion v. Veilleux, 2013 ME 50, ¶ 9 , 65 A.3d 1287 (alteration and quotation marks omitted); see also Liberty v. Benn…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lewis v. Keegan (2×) also: Cited "see"
Me. · 2006 · confidence medium
They added a brief argument that school administrators perform a discretionary act when they supervise teachers. .The denial of summary judgment on the due process claim does not constitute a final judgment, see Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hart, 639 A.2d 107, 107 (Me.1994), and Keegan and Tourtilotte have not appealed from the court’s ruling on this claim. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Norton v. Town of Long Island
Me. · 2003 · confidence medium
See Porrazzo v. Karofsky, 1998 ME 182, ¶ 6 , 714 A.2d 826, 828 (citing Lowatchie dissent and dismissing interlocutory appeal concerning statute of limitations defense because review “would ensure that every future trial court decision rejecting an affirmative defense would be appealed on an interlocutory basis”); Breus v. Bezborodko, 1997 ME 211, ¶¶ 4-5 , 704 A.2d 338, 339 (dismissing appeal concerning long arm statute); see also Butler v. Mooers, 2001 ME 56, ¶ 18 , 771 A.2d 1034, 1039 (citing Lowatchie for proposition that “[w]e have been cautious to allow only a narrow range of int…
cited Cited "see" Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Saunders
Me. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hart, 639 A.2d 107, 107 (Me.1994) (stating the general rule that a “denial of a summary judgment motion does not result in a final judgment”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, on Behalf of Arlene HERD
v.
James R. HART
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Mar 30, 1994.
639 A.2d 107
Raymond E. Ritchie, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for plaintiff., Peter M. Beekerman, Waterville, for defendant.
Wathen, Roberts, Glassman, Clifford, Collins, Rudman, Dana.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
ROBERTS, Justice.

James Hart appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Chandler, J.) affirming the denial by the District Court (Waterville, Studstrup, J.) of his motion for a summary judgment against Arlene Herd on her complaint for paternity determination and the establishment of child support. Hart contends that the court erred in refusing to dismiss the complaint as res judicata. We do not reach that issue; instead we dismiss the appeal for the lack of a final judgment.

This appeal arises out of a paternity dispute involving Herd’s young son. In 1988 and 1990, the Somerset County district attorney filed petitions on behalf of Herd pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, 19 M.R.S.A. §§ 331-420 (1981 & Supp.1993) (URESA), seeking a determination that Hart was the child’s father and the establishment of child support payments. In late 1991 and early 1992, the court (Somerset County, Kravchuk, J., and Browne, A.R.J.) dismissed both petitions without prejudice in order to consolidate the proceedings in the instant action, which was pending in the District Court. Hart then filed a motion for a summary judgment, arguing that the dismissal of the second URE-SA petition operated as an adjudication on the merits pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1). The District Court denied the motion and the Superior Court affirmed.

The denial of a summary judgment motion does not result in a final judgment. Olson v. Albert, 523 A.2d 585, 589 (Me.1987). We have traditionally declined to review eases in which no final judgment has been entered, but have made an exception when “the interests of judicial economy” require addressing the merits immediately. Department of Human Servs. v. Lowatchie, 569 A.2d 197, 199 (Me.1990). This case does not fall within that exception. Although review of this interlocutory order could finally dispose of the entire litigation, the interests of justice do not require immediate review. See id. In Lowatchie, because the applicability of res judicata was clear, immediate review was necessary to prevent future harassment of the defendant with a duplicative suit. Id. at[*108] 199-200. In contrast, because we have not yet resolved the question whether res judicata would apply in the circumstances of this case, use of the judicial economy exception would be inappropriate.

The entry is:

Judgment vacated.

Remanded to the Superior Court with direction to dismiss James Hart’s appeal from the District Court’s order.

All concurring.