Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

158 A.2d 680

Kaplan v. Bollt

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1960-03-17

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1981

1 state decisions

Relies on Toomey v. Toomey · Heller v. Edwards · Kaplowitz Bros. v. Kahan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1960-03-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Appellee 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.

¶2At 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.*

¶3Appeal dismissed.

¶4 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).

/158/a2d/680 · .json · Public domain