Emis v. Emis

I dissent from the majority’s holding that the appellant’s notice of appeal designated a final, appealable order. The majority expands our “substantial compliance” interpretation of Rule 3(e) beyond current jurisprudence to include appeals from orders that do not contain scrivener’s errors and that have been superseded. This court’s decision descends us down a slippery slope and will only [ ¿further confuse practitioners looking for guidance on what is or is not a valid notice of appeal. Accordingly, I dissent because the appeal should be dismissed.

The Jewell case the majority cites does not…