Schulz v. Chadwell

PARK, Judge.

Common questions of appellate practice are raised by motions to dismiss filed in these three appeals. In each case, the motion to dismiss asserts that the notice of appeal failed to specify the appellees as required by CR 73.03, as amended by the Supreme Court effective July 1, 1976.

Prior to July 1, 1976, a notice of appeal under CR 73.03 was required to specify only “the parties taking the appeal.” As amended, CR 73.03 provides:

“The notice of appeal shall specify all the appellants and all the appellees; ‘et al’ and ‘etc.’ are not proper designations of parties.”

In construing the…