Robert Wallace v. Hon. James D. smith/cruz

Summary

The court held that the statute governing supersedeas-bond amounts directly conflicts with the appellate rule because the statute refers only to damages while the rule also includes costs, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest. Applying the separation-of-powers framework, the court concluded that calculating the amount of a supersedeas bond is procedural, so the court rule prevails over the conflicting statute. The court affirmed the superior court's bond calculation and remanded for further proceedings, including an award of reasonable attorney fees.