Court Opinion

ID: 9574344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:04:18.420362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:24.454714
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice,
dissenting:
In the original opinion issued by this Court on October 13, 1982, now withdrawn, the Court stated that “[i]n the supplemental briefs both appellants and respondent argue that the merits of this appeal should be considered by the Court. As a practical matter, however, the respondent acknowledges that to the extent that the trial court’s order denies the appellants’ motion to stay execution of the judgment, the order is not appealable.” The Court then acknowledged that the partial summary judgment was not final and appealable under I.A.R. 11(a)(3), and “consistent with this Court’s recent decisions, Kifer v. School District No. 394, 100 Idaho 411, 599 P.2d 302 (1979); Long v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 100 Idaho 183, 595 P.2d 717 (1979); Farber v. State, 98 Idaho 928, 576 P.2d 209 (1978); Merchants, Inc. v. Intermountain Industries, Inc., 97 Idaho 890, 556 P.2d 366 (1976), the appeal must be dismissed.” I see no reason to depart from what has been,
*849until today, this Court’s long held and consistent policy that appeals taken from nonappealable orders must be dismissed. The Court’s decision today can only insert confusion into an otherwise consistent appellate process, and will no doubt result in an increase in the number of unwarranted appeals.