Court Opinion

ID: 9729609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:44:14.172971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:59.972534
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I write only to the point made by Mr. Justice Souris that:
“While recognizing the existence of judicial power [I would say ‘discretion’] to order submission of separable issues to court or jury * * * we advise both bench and bar that such power [i.e. ‘discretion’] should be exercised only upon the most persuasive showing that the convenience of all parties and of the court require such drastic action.”
First, I do not consider the action “drastic.” It is a mere procedural determination by a trial judge pursuant to an express rule.
Neither do I regard it proper to require of a trial judge “a most persuasive showing” of the reason for his exercise of his judicial discretion. The practical effect of this mandate would be to vitiate the rule. This is better accomplished by its orderly amendment, or repeal.
The writ should be denied.
Dethmers and Kelly, JJ., concurred with O’Hara, J.
Adams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.