Opinion ID: 2607251
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: duit's dismissal quest

Text: DUIT, who initially pressed for dismissal of Stites' appeal when it was at the pre-briefing stage, later argued on appeal that the March 26, 1992 disposition is not appealable. Although this dismissal quest was denied on July 7, 1992, [8] DUIT later repressed the motion in its answer brief. According to DUIT's brief, Stites is too late for corrective relief from the trial court's March 26 reaffirmation order; he should have perfected a timely appeal from the earlier September 25, 1991 ruling that initially gave DUIT its restitutionary relief. Unless there is an express indication to the contrary  in the dismissal's denial followed by the time-honored phrase with prejudice to its renewal  this court's order that overrules a motion to dismiss is always subject to reconsideration. [9] Jurisdictional inquiries into appellate or certiorari cognizance may be considered and re-examined, on motion or sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings. [10] This court's earlier denial of DUIT'S dismissal motion clearly poses no barrier to today's re-examination of appellate cognizance in this certiorari proceeding. Our July 7 order is unburdened by the with-prejudice-to-renewal verbal bar. DUIT was hence free to retender its jurisdictional challenge in the appellate brief and there is absolutely no impediment to this court's revisit of the issue on certiorari.