Finally, in my experience, it is indeed a rare and unreliable piece of hearsay evidence that cannot be made to qualify under any of the thirty-one exceptions to the rule against hearsay. And if we believe enforcement of the rule against hearsay is appropriate and necessary to protect the rights of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, surely we think it necessary to protect the rights and interests of children and their parents.-- McDonald v. McDonald (Miss. June 17, 2010) (Dickinson, J., specially concurring).
... Dickinson also gets the second-best line:
In this case, the Court of Appeals found that, because the Commission's order was appealable, it was not final. Harper, 2009 WL 1856996, at *3. However, no citation of authority is required for the proposition that, unless and until an order or judgment is final, it cannot be appealed. Thus, it would be inconsistent to say that appealable orders are not final.-- Harper v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (Miss. June 17, 2010). What's a little scary however is that the decision was 5-4.
The problem with Dickinson's logic in Harper is two-fold: First, the Court has long held that a MWCC order is not final until the appeal time has expired. Second, he's ignoring stare decisis to get to his desired result - changing the law to screw a plaintiff out of a valid claim.
ReplyDeleteStare decisis protects holdings, not dicta.
ReplyDelete