Opinion ID: 2521279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Summary of Dissent

Text: ¶ 6 Claims governed by an extra-code regime of procedure are not necessarily excluded from the class of those prosecuted upon a cause of action. Neither jurisprudence nor scholarly literature that followed the abolition of the writ system will support a pronouncement that the term cause of action was intended to be reserved for code-regulated litigation. [23] Condemnation claims are prosecuted upon a cause of action for acquisition of property by exercise of eminent domain power. ¶ 7 The court's pronouncement raises for the Field Code a claim that cannot be sustained  that of imparting cause-of-action attributes exclusively to those judicial proceedings in which its norms of procedure govern. The Field Code [24] confers no substantive rights. [25] It is, in its entirety, an adjectivelaw enactment. The cause of action is based on the substantive law of legal liability . . . [26] What is worse, today's conclusion, which rests on no known or identifiable authority, is enveloped in thick clouds of doubtful historicity.