Kaplan v. Bollt
This text of 158 A.2d 680 (Kaplan v. Bollt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellee brought this action seeking possession of real estate located within the District of Columbia. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay the action. After argument, the trial court denied the motion, and appeal has been taken from that denial.
At oral argument and in their briefs, the parties discussed the merits of the case. In doing so, however, they have overlooked an essential prerequisite to appeal, namely, a final and appealable order. A denial of a motion to dismiss or to stay an action is not final and appealable.
Appeal dismissed.
Levine v. Downs, D.C.Mun.App., 1958, 145 A.2d 453; Heller v. Edwards, D.C.Mun.App.1954, 104 A.2d 528 (denial of motion to stay). Kaplowitz Bros. v. Kahan, D.C.Mun.App.1948, 59 A.2d 795; De Bobula v. Tamamian, D.C.Mun.App., 1947, 55 A.2d 204, citing Toomey v. Toomey, 1945, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 149 F.2d 19 (denial of motion to dismiss).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
158 A.2d 680, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-bollt-dc-1960.