Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Hyman KAPLAN and Morris Kaplan, a partnership, T/A Stewart's Auto Upholstering Company, Appellants, v. Theodore BOLLT, Appellee.

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.

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).

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KAPLAN v. BOLLT
(Mar 17, 1960)