Court Opinion

ID: 9795288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:24:35.166157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:29:06.559300
License: Public Domain

Justice WALTERS,
specially concurring.
I concur in the foregoing opinion, except as to Part V. While I do not disagree in principle with what is written there, I believe it is superfluous to this ease. It appears to me that NWP raised the question of the untimeliness of Cate’s objection to the cost bill in NWP’s responsive brief in this appeal, at page 32, lines 1 through 3, as an alternative for us to affirm the district court’s award of costs if we agreed with Cate that the district court erred in making the award. There was not a cross appeal by NWP on the timeliness issue, nor was there a challenge levied on appeal by Cate with regard to the question of the timeliness of its objection. Since we uphold the district court’s award of costs on its merits, we need not discuss the alternative argument posed by NWP nor gratuitously offer an opinion on the application of the rules of procedure where the district court has not taken occasion to decide the question first and the question is not raised by either of the parties properly as an issue on appeal.