Source: http://fsmlaw.org/fsm/decisions/vol9/9fsm163_164.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 07:44:00+00:00

Document:
For the Petitioners: Wesley Simina, Esq.
The FSM Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over matters decided by the Chuuk State Supreme Court originates in article XI, section 7 of the FSM Constitution. Chipen v. Election Comm'r of Losap, 9 FSM Intrm. 163, 164 (App. 1999).
In the Chuuk State Supreme Court appellate division the action of a single justice may be reviewed by the court. Chipen v. Election Comm'r of Losap, 9 FSM Intrm. 163, 164 (App. 1999).
The FSM Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order by a Chuuk State Supreme Court single justice denying a motion for a stay or injunction pending appeal because it is not from a final decision. Chipen v. Election Comm'r of Losap, 9 FSM Intrm. 163, 164 (App. 1999).
Twinis Chipen and others1 petition the Appellate Division of the FSM Supreme Court to grant certiorari and review an order entered on March 15, 1999 by the Chuuk State Supreme Court Appellate Division in CSSC Civil Appeal No. 1-99. That order, which is labeled an "opinion," denies petitioners' motion for a stay or injunction pending appeal. [Chipen v. Election Comm'r of Losap, 9 FSM Intrm. 80 (Chk. S. Ct. App. 1999).] It was rendered by a single justice of the Chuuk State Supreme Court Appellate Division pursuant to Rule 8, CSSC Rules of Appellate Procedure. The order pertains only to the petitioners' request for a stay pending appeal and despite being labeled an "opinion," it does not resolve the issue raised on appeal.
Our appellate jurisdiction over matters decided by the Chuuk State Supreme Court originates in article XI, section 7 of the FSM Constitution. It reads in pertinent part as follows: "If a state constitution permits, the appellate division of the Supreme Court may review other cases on appeal from the highest state court in which a decision may be had." FSM Const. art. XI, § 7.
Chuuk State Supreme Court Appellate Rule 27(c) provides in part that, "[t]he action of a single justice may be reviewed by the court." Without such a review having been sought and obtained by the petitioners here, the order by the single justice denying the motion for a stay or injunction pending appeal is not a final decision. Gustaf v. Mori, 6 FSM Intrm. 284 (App. 1993). See also Wainit v. Weno, 9 FSM Intrm. 160 (App. 1999). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the petition for writ of certiorari.
Accordingly, the petition is denied.
1. The petition for writ of certiorari states that there are approximately fifty (50) petitioners. However, Twinis Chipen is the only petitioner identified by name in the papers submitted to this Court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v.