STATE v. POWELL (1998)

Supreme Court of Vermont.

STATE of Vermont v. Peter Jay POWELL (Walter G. French, Esq., Appellant).

No. 98-303.

Decided: December 21, 1998

Before AMESTOY, C.J., and DOOLEY, MORSE, JOHNSON and SKOGLUND, JJ.

ENTRY ORDER

Defendant's counsel in this criminal case seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying his motion to withdraw. Because the order he seeks to appeal from is not a final appealable order, the appeal is dismissed. See In re Burlington Bagel Bakery, Inc., 150 Vt. 20, 21, 549 A.2d 1044, 1045 (1988) (final and appealable order must end litigation on merits or conclusively determine rights of parties, leaving nothing for court to do but execute judgment); Messih v. Lee Drug, Inc., 174 Cal.App.3d 312, 220 Cal.Rptr. 43, 45 (1985) (ruling on attorney's motion to withdraw is nonappealable interim order); cf. Chaker v. Chaker, 147 Vt. 548, 548 n. *, 520 A.2d 1005, 1006 n * (1986) (applying V.R.A.P. 2 to review as interlocutory appeal trial court's ruling on attorney's motion to withdraw); 19 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice 202.11[8][b], at 61 (3d ed.1998) (given related decisions by United States Supreme Court, orders denying disqualification of attorneys in criminal cases are most likely not appealable under final judgment rule).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network