Court Opinion

ID: 9513380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:34:51.611945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:50.384613
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in result.
[¶ 40] I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion written by Justice Maring. I do so although I believe the logic and better practice is that outlined in Justice Sandstrom’s opinion. I expect it is for that reason outlined in Justice Sandstrom’s opinion the rules now require post-judgment motions be filed as well as served.
[¶ 41] However, insofar as there was confusion as to when the motion was “made” for purpose of determining whether or not Pax-ton’s notice of appeal was timely, I concur with the result reached by Justice Maring. In Dehn v. Otter Tail Power Co., 248 N.W.2d 851, 856 (N.D.1976) this court, in deciding an appeal was timely, observed “we are acting consistent with the objective we have often stated in the past when motions for dismissal were made on the basis of other of our Rules of Appellate Procedure. That objective is that, whenever reasonably possible, a case should be disposed of on its merits. LeFevre Sales, Inc. v. Bill Rippley Construction, Inc., 238 N.W.2d 673 (N.D.1976).”
[¶ 42] When, in deciding whether or not an appeal is timely, there is reasonable confusion as to the meaning of the rule, I favor a result which allows the specific appeal to proceed and the case determined on its merits. The rule can be amended so the procedure for future appeals is clear. That, in effect, is what happened here. The opinion written by Justice Maring permits the appeal to proceed on its merits. The rule, amended subsequently to the appeal, establishes a clear, and in my opinion and that of Justice Sandstrom, the better procedure for future appeals.
[¶43] Finally, I agree with Justice Mar-ing’s review of the merits of the appeal, and I concur in the result because it “is the same result that would have been achieved if the *81appeal ... had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” See Hayden v. Workers Compensation Bureau, 447 N.W.2d 489, 500 (N.D.1989) (VandeWalle, J., concurring specially).
[¶ 44] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.