Court Opinion

ID: 9587079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:52.965198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:01.306113
License: Public Domain

Sears, Presiding Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the Court of Appeals’ consideration of the transcript from the Nolan action when deciding the present appeal was not harmful, as it did not result in the consideration of any evidence not already included in the record in this appeal. However, I believe that the Court of Appeals clearly erred by considering matters outside the appellate record in this case. If repeated, such a practice will bring uncertainty to an appellate record’s limited scope, something in which litigants should have confidence. Furthermore, while there appears to be no harm in the present appeal, I am convinced that in most instances, considering matters outside of the record when deciding an appeal would result in harmful error. Therefore, I caution against this practice in future cases.
*751Decided February 4, 2002.
Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White & Williams, James L. Paul, Matthew J. McCoyd, for appellant.
Morris, Manning & Martin, Lewis E. Hassett, Jessica F. Pardi, Jennifer L. McKernan, Perry A. Phillips, for appellees.
Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, Seth G. Weissman, Steven D. Caley, amici curiae.