Court Opinion

ID: 9507386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:22:19.210799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:19.179548
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SHEA,
dissenting:
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Sheehy. Although the wording in the order in this case can be distinguished from that in State ex rel. Moser v. District Court, supra (cited and quoted by Mr. Justice Sheehy), the simple fact is that Judge Harkin, in calling in a judge from outside the district, did invite that judge to assume jurisdiction and that judge did assume jurisdiction. The spirit of the Moser decision should control, and this means that Judge Harkin lost jurisdiction after the judge he invited to assume jurisdiction did in fact assume jurisdiction. The reason for doing so should not control the question of whether Judge Harkin divested himself of jurisdiction.
The precedent started by the majority here is not a healthy one.