Opinion ID: 2546725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Advancement of the September 9, 2003, and January 29, 2004, orders.

Text: ¶ 13 It appears from the record that the September 9, 2003, order was prematurely advanced by the trial court because the summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claims left unresolved issues on the partially-decided claims. For instance, the appellate record shows that the trial court, when considering the declaratory judgment action at the summary judgment stage on July 16, 2003, held in abeyance any determination as to the constitutional infirmity of any of the transactions it was considering. [27] Because the September 9, 2003, order left unresolved issues of the partly-decided judgment claim, the order was at that point nothing more than an intermediate or interlocutory order which is not an appealable order, [28] and it remained under the plenary control of the trial judge to modify or vacate. [29]