Court Opinion

ID: 9507919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:26:25.684243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:25.576012
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SHEA,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree with the disposition of the case against Colonial Pacific, but I do not agree with the disposition of the case against Major Muffler. I believe that there is a 4-3 vote to hear Major Muffler’s appeal, and I would, on that basis, *419grant a new trial to Major Muffler because of error in instructing the jury on the law.
The first issue is whether Major Muffler’s appeal is properly before us. The opinion states that a 3-3 vote with one abstention means that the appeal is not properly before us, and therefore an an affirmance of the judgment against Major Muffler is required. I do not agree with this analysis.
The abstention must be treated, for purposes of appeal, as an affirmative vote in favor of hearing Major Muffler’s appeal on the merits. The abstention on the jurisdictional issue must be read in conjunction with the abstainer’s vote on the judgments. That vote states: “I would affirm in all respects.”
There is no ruling of the trial court that the notice of appeal was untimely, and properly so, for that is a question for this Court to decide. Therefore, when Justice Sheehy says that he would affirm as to both defendants, I read this as meaning he would affirm on the merits as to both defendants. There is nothing else to affirm.
To affirm on the merits as to Major Muffler, there must first be a vote that Major Muffler’s appeal is properly before us. Accordingly, I believe there is a 4-3 vote in favor of hearing Major Muffler’s appeal on the merits.