Court Opinion

ID: 9728330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:05:09.029482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:46.546237
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority opinion that Creeches did not file the record timely insofar as they attempt to appeal the summary judgment in favor of Dico, Inc., and that that portion of this appeal should be dismissed.
I dissent from the majority opinion in affirming the summary judgment in favor of REMC. The evidence before the court supported an inference that REMC's line was below the minimum height mandated by the applicable code, thus a genuine issue of fact was presented. In determining that no genuine issue of fact exists, the majority has accepted REMC's evidence to the exclusion of the Creeches' evidence, thereby resolving a factual dispute. Such cannot be done in summary judgment proceedings. Rather, resolution of such factual issues is the sole prerogative of the trier of fact upon trial of the issue.
Therefore, I would reverse the summary judgment in favor of REMC.