judicial economy exception in Maine

2006The judicial economy exception is available only in those rare cases in which appellate "review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final disposition of the entire litigation, and the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Lowatchie, 569 A.2d 197, 199 (Me.1990) (quotation marks omitted); accord U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Carter, 2002 ME 103, ¶ 13 , 799 A.2d 1232, 1236 .

2003The exception pertinent to the present case is the judicial economy exception, which is applied when “review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation, and the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Lowatchie, 569 A.2d 197, 199 (Me.1990) (quotations and citations omitted). [¶ 7] We have applied the judicial economy exception to review a narrow range of interlocutory appeals including, as is the case here, affirmative defenses.

2002State Employees Ass'n, 482 A.2d 461, 464 (Me.1984)). [¶ 4] Poulin relies on Department of Human Services v. Lowatchie, 569 A.2d 197 (Me.1990), as authority for his assertion that the judicial economy exception is applicable to his interlocutory appeal of the court’s failure to grant his motion to dismiss.

2002Exceptions to the final judgment rule have been allowed “where its application would not further its purpose,” but those exceptions are “ ‘few, narrow and well-defined.’ ” Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Lowatchie, 569 A.2d 197, 199 (Me.1990) (quoting State v. Maine State Employees Ass’n, 482 A.2d 461, 464 (Me. 1984)). [¶ 7] The judicial economy exception applies when a review of a nonfinal order can produce a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation and the interests of justice require that we undertake immediate review.

2023Allhough the Board recommended that the Town hire at least four experts at GSG I s expense to review findings made by other experts and opine on the B0ard 1 s questions, the Law Court has stated that "[p]articularly unique circumstances may justify reaching the merits of an intel'locutory appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule,1' liberty v. Bennett, 2012 ME 81 , ~ 22, 46 A.3d 1141 , and the majority of the cases making the exception involve sensitive family matte1·s. (citing Efstathiou v. The Aspinquic/, Inc., 2008 ME 145, 1 [ 23, 956 A.2d 110 (dissolulion

2021Servs. 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. Bennett, 2012

2023Allhough the Board recommended that the Town hire at least four experts at GSG I s expense to review findings made by other experts and opine on the B0ard 1 s questions, the Law Court has stated that "[p]articularly unique circumstances may justify reaching the merits of an intel'locutory appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule,1' liberty v. Bennett, 2012 ME 81 , ~ 22, 46 A.3d 1141 , and the majority of the cases making the exception involve sensitive family matte1·s. (citing Efstathiou v. The Aspinquic/, Inc., 2008 ME 145, 1 [ 23, 956 A.2d 110 (dissolulion

2021Servs. 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. Bennett, 2012

2012“If the availability of the judicial economy exception depended on our deciding the case in a certain way, then the judicial economy exception would eviscerate the final judgment rule because we would have to decide the merits in order to determine if the appeal was properly before us.” Id.

2009Judicial Economy Exception [¶ 26] The judicial economy exception “is available in those rare cases in which appellate review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation.” Id. ¶ 13, 799 A.2d at 1236 (quotation marks omitted).

2008See Austin v. Universal Cheerleaders Ass’n, 2002 ME 174, ¶ 7 , 812 A.2d 253, 256 (stating that the judicial economy exception permits appeals of nonfinal orders when (1) appellate review provides “final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation,” and (2) the interests of justice require immediate review (quotation marks omitted)).

2008See Austin v. Universal Cheerleaders Ass’n, 2002 ME 174, ¶ 7 , 812 A.2d 253, 256 (stating that the judicial economy exception permits appeals of nonfinal orders when (1) appellate review provides “final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation,” and (2) the interests of justice require immediate review (quotation marks omitted)).

1997Those cases recognize and apply the judicial economy exception when a “review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation and the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Lowatchie, 569 A.2d at 199 ; See also Munsey v. Groves, 151 Me. 200, 202 , 117 A.2d 64, 66 (1955). [¶ 5] The “interests of justice” requirement of the judicial economy exception cannot be met in this case.

1997Those cases recognize and apply the judicial economy exception when a “review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation and the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Lowatchie, 569 A.2d at 199 ; See also Munsey v. Groves, 151 Me. 200, 202 , 117 A.2d 64, 66 (1955). [¶ 5] The “interests of justice” requirement of the judicial economy exception cannot be met in this case.

2024An appeal must meet two requirements to fall within the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule: first, that the “review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation, and second, that the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Town of Otis v. Derr, 2001 ME 151, ¶ 3 , 782 A.2d 788 7 28-A M.R.S. § 2512 (2024) provides: 1.

2024An appeal must meet two requirements to fall within the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule: first, that the “review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation, and second, that the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Town of Otis v. Derr, 2001 ME 151, ¶ 3 , 782 A.2d 788 7 28-A M.R.S. § 2512 (2024) provides: 1.

2023Allhough the Board recommended that the Town hire at least four experts at GSG I s expense to review findings made by other experts and opine on the B0ard 1 s questions, the Law Court has stated that "[p]articularly unique circumstances may justify reaching the merits of an intel'locutory appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule,1' liberty v. Bennett, 2012 ME 81 , ~ 22, 46 A.3d 1141 , and the majority of the cases making the exception involve sensitive family matte1·s. (citing Efstathiou v. The Aspinquic/, Inc., 2008 ME 145, 1 [ 23, 956 A.2d 110 (dissolulion

2012See, e.g., Efstathiou v. The Aspinquid, Inc., 2008 ME 145, ¶ 23 , 956 A.2d 110 (concluding that “the exceedingly long history of this litigation” and the “unusual circumstance” of the case warranted the application of the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule); Adoption of Michaela C., 2004 ME 153, ¶ 14 , 863 A.2d 270 (concluding that the judicial economy exception is appropriate when there were three proceedings pending in separate courts involving the same party and the pendency of the proceedings had created a stalemate); Williams v. Williams, 1998 ME 32, ¶ 7 , 706 A.2d 1038

2026See, e.g., Hearts with Haiti, 2019 ME 26 , ¶ 17, 202 A.3d 1189 . [¶20] The judicial economy exception, urged by Morse, “permits an interlocutory appeal when (1) review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation, and (2) the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Maples, 2022 ME 26, ¶ 17 , 273 A.3d 358 (quotation marks omitted).

2026See, e.g., Hearts with Haiti, 2019 ME 26 , ¶ 17, 202 A.3d 1189 . [¶20] The judicial economy exception, urged by Morse, “permits an interlocutory appeal when (1) review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation, and (2) the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Maples, 2022 ME 26, ¶ 17 , 273 A.3d 358 (quotation marks omitted).

2014See Bond v. Bond, 2011 ME 105, ¶ 6 , 30 A.3d 816 . [¶ 5] The judicial economy exception allows appellate review of an interlocutory order if resolution of the appeal would establish a final disposition of the entire litigation and “the interests of justice require that an immediate review be undertaken.” Bruesewitz, 2007 ME 13, ¶ 6 , 912 A.2d 1255 .

2014See Bond v. Bond, 2011 ME 105, ¶ 6 , 30 A.3d 816 . [¶ 5] The judicial economy exception allows appellate review of an interlocutory order if resolution of the appeal would establish a final disposition of the entire litigation and “the interests of justice require that an immediate review be undertaken.” Bruesewitz, 2007 ME 13, ¶ 6 , 912 A.2d 1255 .

2026See, e.g., Hearts with Haiti, 2019 ME 26 , ¶ 17, 202 A.3d 1189 . [¶20] The judicial economy exception, urged by Morse, “permits an interlocutory appeal when (1) review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation, and (2) the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Maples, 2022 ME 26, ¶ 17 , 273 A.3d 358 (quotation marks omitted).

2023The hearing before the Superior Court must be without a jury."§ 2691(3)(0). 4 The judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule is only available "in those rare cases in which appellate review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation." Hearts with Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick, 2019 ME 26 ,118,202 AJd 1189 (quoting US.

2026See, e.g., Hearts with Haiti, 2019 ME 26 , ¶ 17, 202 A.3d 1189 . [¶20] The judicial economy exception, urged by Morse, “permits an interlocutory appeal when (1) review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final, disposition of the entire litigation, and (2) the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Maples, 2022 ME 26, ¶ 17 , 273 A.3d 358 (quotation marks omitted).

2022See Hearts with Haiti, 2019 ME 26 , ¶ 18, 202 A.3d 1189 (explaining that the judicial economy exception was inapplicable when “a substantial number of issues would remain in dispute”). [¶20] Because no exception to the final judgment rule applies, we dismiss the appeal.

2023Allhough the Board recommended that the Town hire at least four experts at GSG I s expense to review findings made by other experts and opine on the B0ard 1 s questions, the Law Court has stated that "[p]articularly unique circumstances may justify reaching the merits of an intel'locutory appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule,1' liberty v. Bennett, 2012 ME 81 , ~ 22, 46 A.3d 1141 , and the majority of the cases making the exception involve sensitive family matte1·s. (citing Efstathiou v. The Aspinquic/, Inc., 2008 ME 145, 1 [ 23, 956 A.2d 110 (dissolulion

2023Allhough the Board recommended that the Town hire at least four experts at GSG I s expense to review findings made by other experts and opine on the B0ard 1 s questions, the Law Court has stated that "[p]articularly unique circumstances may justify reaching the merits of an intel'locutory appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule,1' liberty v. Bennett, 2012 ME 81 , ~ 22, 46 A.3d 1141 , and the majority of the cases making the exception involve sensitive family matte1·s. (citing Efstathiou v. The Aspinquic/, Inc., 2008 ME 145, 1 [ 23, 956 A.2d 110 (dissolulion

2019See Tornesello v. Tisdale , 2008 ME 84 , ¶ 12, 948 A.2d 1244 .

2019See Tornesello v. Tisdale , 2008 ME 84 , ¶ 12, 948 A.2d 1244 .

2014The judicial economy exception applies "when a decision on the appeal ... regardless of what it is, would effectively dispose of the entire case.” Bond, 2011 ME 105, ¶ 12 , 30 A.3d 816 (quotation marks omitted).

2014The judicial economy exception applies "when a decision on the appeal ... regardless of what it is, would effectively dispose of the entire case.” Bond, 2011 ME 105, ¶ 12 , 30 A.3d 816 (quotation marks omitted).

2022They further argue that, although not all defendants moved to dismiss, our ruling on that question will “decide the entire case,” and they urge us to review the court’s order granting the motion to dismiss pursuant to the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule. [¶15] “Ordinarily, the final judgment rule prevents a party from appealing a trial court’s decision on a motion before a final judgment has been rendered.” Fiber Materials, Inc. v. Subilia, 2009 ME 71, ¶ 12 , 974 A.2d 918 .

2022They further argue that, although not all defendants moved to dismiss, our ruling on that question will “decide the entire case,” and they urge us to review the court’s order granting the motion to dismiss pursuant to the judicial economy exception to the final judgment rule. [¶15] “Ordinarily, the final judgment rule prevents a party from appealing a trial court’s decision on a motion before a final judgment has been rendered.” Fiber Materials, Inc. v. Subilia, 2009 ME 71, ¶ 12 , 974 A.2d 918 .

2021Far from being a clear application of claim preclusion, see Norton, 2003 ME 25, ¶¶ 7-9 , 816 A.2d 59 , this appeal would require us to undertake a complex application of state and federal laws to the facts presented in order to determine whether Cutting’s malpractice claims are precluded. [¶20] Accordingly, we decline to accept this appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception and dismiss it.

2021Far from being a clear application of claim preclusion, see Norton, 2003 ME 25, ¶¶ 7-9 , 816 A.2d 59 , this appeal would require us to undertake a complex application of state and federal laws to the facts presented in order to determine whether Cutting’s malpractice claims are precluded. [¶20] Accordingly, we decline to accept this appeal pursuant to the judicial economy exception and dismiss it.

2021Id. ¶ 9; see also Porrazzo v. Karofsky, 1998 ME 182, ¶ 6 , 714 A.2d 826 (declining to apply the judicial economy exception where the appeal “would [have] require[d] us to resolve complex legal issues involving conflict-of-law principles and the law of both Rhode Island and Massachusetts”); Dep’t of Hum.

2021Id. ¶ 9; see also Porrazzo v. Karofsky, 1998 ME 182, ¶ 6 , 714 A.2d 826 (declining to apply the judicial economy exception where the appeal “would [have] require[d] us to resolve complex legal issues involving conflict-of-law principles and the law of both Rhode Island and Massachusetts”); Dep’t of Hum.

2021See, e.g., Forest Ecology Network, 2012 ME 36, ¶ 23 , 39 A.3d 74 (applying the judicial economy exception because “the denial of appellate review could result in unnecessary judicial interference with an extensive rulemaking process by an Executive Branch agency, thus burdening 12 the separation of powers,” coupled with the “unprecedented and far-reaching effects of [the agency action] and the potential waste of extensive agency resources”); Town of Minot, 2012 ME 25, ¶¶ 9-10, 13 , 39 A.3d 897 (reviewing the merits of an interlocutory appeal regarding the legal issue of whether the term “right

2021See, e.g., Forest Ecology Network, 2012 ME 36, ¶ 23 , 39 A.3d 74 (applying the judicial economy exception because “the denial of appellate review could result in unnecessary judicial interference with an extensive rulemaking process by an Executive Branch agency, thus burdening 12 the separation of powers,” coupled with the “unprecedented and far-reaching effects of [the agency action] and the potential waste of extensive agency resources”); Town of Minot, 2012 ME 25, ¶¶ 9-10, 13 , 39 A.3d 897 (reviewing the merits of an interlocutory appeal regarding the legal issue of whether the term “right

2021Servs. 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. Bennett, 2012

2021Servs. 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. Bennett, 2012

2019See State v. Carrillo, 2018 ME 84, ¶¶ 7-8 , 187 A.3d 621 ; Liberty, 2012 ME 81, ¶¶ 20-21 , 46 A.3d 1141 . 5 the complete record that accompanies a final judgment.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). [¶8] Second, “the judicial economy exception is available only in those rare cases in which appellate review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final[,] disposition of the entire litigation, and the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Passalaqua v. Passalaqua, 2006 ME 123 , ¶ 13 n.3, 908 A.2d 1214 (quotation marks omitted).

2019See State v. Carrillo, 2018 ME 84, ¶¶ 7-8 , 187 A.3d 621 ; Liberty, 2012 ME 81, ¶¶ 20-21 , 46 A.3d 1141 . 5 the complete record that accompanies a final judgment.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). [¶8] Second, “the judicial economy exception is available only in those rare cases in which appellate review of a non-final order can establish a final, or practically final[,] disposition of the entire litigation, and the interests of justice require that immediate review be undertaken.” Passalaqua v. Passalaqua, 2006 ME 123 , ¶ 13 n.3, 908 A.2d 1214 (quotation marks omitted).

2012See Tungate v. MacLean-Stevens Studios, Inc., 1997 ME 113, ¶¶ 4-5 , 695 A.2d 564 ; Alexander, Maine Appellate Practice § 304(f) at 206 (3d ed.2008); see also, e.g., Fiber Materials, Inc., 2009 ME 71, ¶¶ 12-13 , 974 A.2d 918 ; Estate of Markheim, 2008 ME 138, ¶ 12 , 957 A.2d 56 . [¶ 17] There are two exceptions to the final judgment rule that may apply to support review on the merits of an appeal from a trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify an attorney: the death knell exception and the judicial economy exception. [¶ 18] Under the death knell exception to the final judgment rule, an in

2012See Tungate v. MacLean-Stevens Studios, Inc., 1997 ME 113, ¶¶ 4-5 , 695 A.2d 564 ; Alexander, Maine Appellate Practice § 304(f) at 206 (3d ed.2008); see also, e.g., Fiber Materials, Inc., 2009 ME 71, ¶¶ 12-13 , 974 A.2d 918 ; Estate of Markheim, 2008 ME 138, ¶ 12 , 957 A.2d 56 . [¶ 17] There are two exceptions to the final judgment rule that may apply to support review on the merits of an appeal from a trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify an attorney: the death knell exception and the judicial economy exception. [¶ 18] Under the death knell exception to the final judgment rule, an in