Court Opinion

ID: 9643276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:24:31.418668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:58.964511
License: Public Domain

Griffin Smith, dissenting. • The Per Curiam order adopting" Judge DuNaway’s opinion was made November 27th. The Court’s treatment of the controversy was announced November 20th and was a continuation of the action of an individual Judge, then concurred in by four others, but no opinion was adopted. (See Supreme Court Judgment Record C-47, p. 249.) On the contrary, the nstatus-quo was affirmed and parties to the record were accorded the right to be heard at a later date. Expressions of the Chief Justice at the time the individual order was made are self-explanatory, but because no opinion was adopted these views could not be termed a dissent; nor could they assume that status on the 20th when the only Court action was to continue the individual order. The practical wisdom of not precipitately acting was justified when, before the temporary, order could reach the Court sitting in its constitutional capacity, the strike was terminated. Result of our hasty intervention was to adjudicate the rights of each side on pleadings and orders alone, without having before us the factual background disclosing relationship of the parties. Had the matter been at once remanded to the Chancellor with directions for a prompt hearing, the value of this Court’s determh nation of a dispute abounding in complications would have been of some permanent value.