Court Opinion

ID: 9718054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:16:02.160545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:57.083462
License: Public Domain

Snell, J.
I respectfully dissent. I cannot agree with Division III of the majority opinion.
Accepting, as the majority says in Division I that this case invoked the original jurisdiction of the court, and as said in Division II that it is “akin to commencement of ordinary actions,” the same kind of notice should be required as is required for original actions.
The notice in this case referred to rule 368, Rules of Civil Procedure, but otherwise was silent.
An original notice should inform a defendant as to who is claiming what from whom and how, where and within what time something must be done. The notice in this case is lacking in basic requirements.
T would affirm.
Garfield, C. J., joins in this dissent.