Court Opinion

ID: 9675645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:00:23.419601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:36.309883
License: Public Domain

SHORES, Justice
(concurring specially):
I agree with the result and agree that Rule 54(b), ARCP, has no application since, in my view, the order entered by the trial court, granting the bank’s motion for summary judgment and limiting the appellants’ right to full inspection, was a judgment which was final and therefore appealable.
As to these appellants, stockholders, the ruling of the trial court could not have been more adverse, nor final. The ruling denied every aspect of relief which they sought without reservation. It was their contention that they were entitled to full inspection of the records of the bank. The appointment of a master to select what parts of those records could be inspected was, as far as the stockholders were concerned, a denial of their claim of right to inspect all of the records. Regardless of what the master produced, it would necessarily be less than they sought to inspect. Therefore, I think appeal was proper and that the method of review should have been utilized to test the pro*294priety of the trial court’s refusal to permit full inspection of the records. The fact that the court has granted a petition for writ of maridamus, as to the right to inspect, does not destroy the finality of the judgment entered and appealed from here, but candor requires us to admit that piecemeal review has been the result.