Assignment Nos. VII and VIII
How later courts described this case
- Assignment Nos. VII and VIII
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the reasoning of the majority opinion; however, I would dismiss the proceeding upon the ground that we should not have granted the petition for review.
The principal ground for the petition for review was the contention that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court’s error was not prejudicial. The facts involved in the alleged error were unusual and it is doubtful whether an issue, similar to this will arise again. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion, regardless of whether we were of the opinion that the Court of Appeals erred, the question is not one of' such substance that we should have granted the petition for review. Even if we are of the opinion error has been committed, usually this alone should not be grounds for granting review; we should grant review only if the error raises an issue of importance beyond the immediate case. See note to Bule 47-A, Supreme Court Buies of Procedure.