Court Opinion

ID: 9551727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:58:13.576162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:26.952321
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). I specially concur. The opinion states: The reasoning by which the result was reached in Powers [Powers v. Riccobene Masonry Const., Inc., 97 N.M. 20, 636 P.2d 291 (Ct.App.1980) ] is an aberration; the reasoning departs from both judicial decisions and the statutory law of New Mexico. It also states: * * * Powers was incorrectly decided. In Powers, certiorari was granted and then quashed. Powers does not represent the views of the Supreme Court. “A denial of certiorari imports nothing as to the merits of the case. All it means is that, for whatever reasons, there were not four members of the Court who wished to consider the issues presented for review.” Howell v. Jones, 516 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1975); State v. Jacques, 99 N.J.Super. 230, 239 A.2d 252 (1968); Beezer v. City of Seattle, 62 Wash.2d 569, 383 P.2d 895 (1963). Brown v. State, 294 Ala. 241, 314 So.2d 721 (1975), omitting citations, said: By denying the writ, we point out that writs of certiorari are frequently denied without any consideration of the merits. A denial of certiorari should never be considered as an expression by the reviewing court on the merits of the controversy. Our denial of the writ should not be understood as approving or disapproving the language used, or the statements of law contained in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. In denying a writ, a comment can be made. Wright v. State, 294 Ala. 99, 312 So.2d 421 (1975). A denial “cannot be used as precedent or authority for or against the propositions raised by either of the proceedings.” State v. Edwards, 135 So.2d 889, 890-891 (Fla.1961). Neither is it tantamount to an affirmance of the Appellate Division on the merits, West Point Island Civic Ass’n v. Township Committee, 54 N.J. 339, 255 A.2d 237 (1969), nor an approval either of the result reached by the Appellate Division or of the opinion rendered by it. State v. Chisholm, 155 Conn. 706, 236 A.2d 465 (1967). These rules variously stated are uniform. Heretofore, courts and lawyers have cited and referred to denials of certiorari with the belief that the opinion of the Court of Appeals was clothed with finality. It is not. The opinion is subject to being overruled, modified or amended by the Court of Appeals. The opinion is clothed with finality when it is affirmed, cited or quoted favorably by the Supreme Court. Having dissented in Powers, I agree that it was incorrectly decided. The opinion remands the case with instructions to amend the judgment consistent with the opinion. To attempt to conform with these instructions may prove confusing. When an amended judgment is ordered entered, this Court should set forth the precise amendments to be made. If any substantive disagreements arise, clarification in this Court may be requested. I think the opinion holds that North River shall pay 45% of the partial permanent disability benefits for the full term of 600 weeks and Mountain States shall pay 10% of the partial permanent disability benefits for the full term. However, the opinion states that: The wage rate used in connection with the first accident is higher than the wage rate used in connection with the second accident; however, the wage rate is not an issue. Later, the opinion states: Because the wage rate applicable to North River is higher than that of Mountain States, Mountain States’ liability will be less than 10 percent of the wage rate applicable to Mountain States. Inasmuch as this matter appears to be clear and unambigious to my colleagues, no further comment is necessary.