Court Opinion

ID: 9672224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:51:15.290989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.025433
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting. This appeal should be dismissed for the same reasons I expressed in my dissent in Driggers v. Locke, 323 Ark. 63, 913 S.W.2d 269 (1996). Eventually, this court will need to overrule Driggers or amend Rule 54(b) so the rule will reflect the holding in Driggers. As matters stand now, the Driggers decision and Rule 54(b) are at odds. Rule 54(b) is quite simple and will work if its provisions are followed. The rule provides that an interlocutory appeal may be had from the dismissal of one party or one claim in a multiparty, multi-claim lawsuit when the trial court enters the dismissal of the party or claim as a final judgment, and makes express findings that there is no just reason to delay the appeal. Here, for whatever reasons, the appellant simply circumvented Rule 54(b)’s dictates and did not ask the trial court for an interlocutory appeal. Because she failed to comply with Rule 54(b)’s express language, her appeal should be dismissed. Instead, this court awards appellant an interlocutory appeal. I just “don’t get it.”