State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- Citation
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- Parent Document
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- Jurisdiction
- Rhode Island (state)
- Effective Date
- 1999-05-27
Other Sections in This Document (18)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
- State Water Resources Board v. Howard, 729 A.2d 712 (1999)
Full Text
1,117 charsAs we have stated previously, case consolidation is allowed to avoid unnecessary costs or delay but case consolidation does not result in a merger of the cases. See Martin v. Lilly, 505 A.2d 1156, 1159 (R.I.1986). Causes of action, although consolidated, remain distinct throughout trial and in the event of an appeal, a notice of appeal must be filed for each action. See id. Rule 5(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “[w]hen two (2) or more parties file a joint notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(b), each appellant shall pay one hundred fifty dollars ($150).” Here, the notice of appeal incorporated all eleven of the case numbers from the judgments below, but only one filing fee was paid. Consequently, these appeals are not properly before us and therefore, they are summarily dismissed on that basis. However, even if our jurisdiction had been properly invoked, we believe that the disputed leases are valid. Thus, to terminate the uncertainty resulting from the state’s actions, we will assume jurisdiction arguendo and consider the appeals as if they had been properly filed.