Court Opinion

ID: 9586749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:14:29.992647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:49.422855
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice
(dissenting):
The majority opinion states that, “It might be argued that because the State is not named as a party, this matter is civil in nature, and hence the quoted section does not apply. However, the veneer only is civil. * * * ” The fact that the State is not a named defendant is wholly irrelevant as to the nature of the action. The cold, hard fact is that it is civil and 77-39-4 has absolutely no application.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court directing the City Court to make available to the plaintiffs in this action (defendants in a criminal proceeding) some depositions.1 This appeal is proper and should not be dismissed, but decided on its merits.
HENRIOD, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of CALLISTER, J.

. The record does not disclose the who, when, where or why of these depositions.