The majority found Monday that the court rules require an automatic stay of lower court proceedings while an appeal of a judgment of the Court of Appeals is pending before the high court. A Court of Appeals judgment includes that court’s decisions in interlocutory appeals, the justices said.
The automatic stay only prevents the court from acting on the specific issues on appeal, but in Scott’s case, the trial should have been put on hold because it featured the disputed witness testimony, the state justices found.
“While an automatic stay does not necessarily prevent a court from commencing trial when an interlocutory appeal is pending and the question on review is collateral to the trial, the trial court here abused its discretion because the trial included the very evidence that was the subject of the application pending before this court,” Justice Brian K. Zahra wrote for the majority.
The justices concluded, however, that interlocutory appeals are not “on par” with appeals from final judgments and do not divest trial judges of their jurisdiction over cases the way final appeals do.
