Kaplan v. Bollt
Hyman KAPLAN and Morris Kaplan, a partnership, T/A Stewart's Auto Upholstering Company v. Theodore BOLLT
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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. *
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).
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.