Robin M. Emis, Appellant v. Keith W. Emis, Appellee — Wood, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Wood, dissenting, would dismiss the appeal because both notices of appeal identified a superseded letter opinion rather than the final order. She reasons that this was not an obvious scrivener's error subject to substantial-compliance treatment under Rule 3(e), and that the identified document was not an appealable final order. The dissent therefore rejects extending substantial-compliance doctrine to permit an appeal from an order that was later superseded.