Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Bruner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• indicating that “trial courts should be reluctant to enter Rule 54(b) orders since the purpose of this rule is a limited one: to provide a recourse for litigants when dismissal of less than all their claims will create undue hardships”
• discussing the “notion of connectedness” and courts’ focus on “(1) the factual overlap (or lack thereof) between the claims disposed of and the remaining claims, and (2) whether the claims disposed of and the remaining claims seek separate relief’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[T]he facts giving rise to [Plaintiff’s] four claims are so overlapping that the certifi- cation under Rule 54(b) of an order disposing of only two of the claims was error.”’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).