Kaplan v. Bollt

158 A.2d 680, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 287
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 17, 1960
DocketNo. 2515
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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.

Bluebook
Kaplan v. Bollt, 158 A.2d 680, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 287 (D.C. 1960).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crown Oil & Wax Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America
429 A.2d 1376 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
158 A.2d 680, 1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-bollt-dc-1960.