Court Opinion

ID: 9761158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:32:55.223081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:20.441442
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I cannot understand why the majority has, without notice to the bench and bar or opportunity for adequate consideration, suddenly decided to change horses in the middle of the stream. Ordinarily we do not change our rules to accommodate the litigants in a case pending before us. In fact we have in every instance since I have been on the court discussed the proposed change for several weeks or referred it to the appropriate committee for consideration and comment. The order certifying the class action in this case is conditional and is not final in other respects, in my opinion. We have many times stated that in order for a judgment to be final and appealable it must dismiss a party from court, discharge him from the action, or conclude his rights to the subject matter in controversy. Hall v. City of Bentonville, 275 Ark. 210, 628 S.W.2d 326(1982). The order in the present case does none of the above. With our rules and case law holding this order not to be an appealable order, I think the trial court and the litigants are entitled to proceed through this trial without the unprecedented action taken by this court today. I believe the action taken by the court at least has the appearance of unfairness. Henceforth trial judges and lawyers will be even more uncertain as to what this court will do in situations previously considered settled. I would dismiss the appeal.