Blake v. Rupe

Had I been writing for the majority, I would have found that this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and therefore would have affirmed.

Following the perfection of the appeal in this case, we discovered a possible jurisdictional defect, and, at oral argument, we asked the parties to submit additional briefs addressing our concerns. Given the provisions of Rule 59(f), W.R.C.P.,1 we questioned whether the appellant’s notice of appeal was timely. The following describes the sequence of events that gives rise to the problem:

Judgment Entered 4-27-81

Rule 59 Motion Piled 5-05-81