Court Opinion

ID: 9648996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:40:10.810787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:14.355112
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Justice
(dissenting).
While the pleadings in this case can accurately be described as unusual, it is apparent from a reading of the instrument designated “First Amended Supplemental Petition” that it was intended to amend only plaintiffs’ “Supplemental Petition,” and not their “Second Supplemental Petition” which was utilized for the purpose of bringing Aetna Casualty Company into the case as an additional defendant.1 ■
I would hold that the Second Supplemental Petition remained a live pleading in the case and that, therefore, there was no final judgment until the entry of the order disposing of Aetna.

. While a supplemental petition is not the usual vehicle for bringing in a new party, the propriety of the plaintiffs’ action in filing a Second Supplemental Petition instead of an amended original petition for this purpose is not before us, since Aetna filed an answer in the case.