In re: A.F. Moore & Associates, Inc.

Ct. of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandamus after determining that Dist. Ct. had erred in granting defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of defendants’ petition for writ of certiorari that had yet to be filed in U.S. Supreme Ct. Record showed that: (1) plaintiff filed challenge to their pre-2008 property tax assessments; (2) Dist. Ct. dismissed said challenge, and Ct. of Appeals reversed, after finding that Dist. Ct. had jurisdiction to consider said challenge; and (3) Dist. Ct. granted defendants’ motion for stay, after reasoning that consideration of challenge would be without effect if U.S. Supreme Ct. had granted certiorari petition and found in defendants’ favor on merits of appeal. Dist. Ct.’s grant of defendants’ request for stay was in direct opposition to Ct. of Appeals’ mandate and conflicted with “mandate rule,” where Ct. of Appeals had reversed Dist. Ct. original judgment and remanded matter for further proceedings, since Dist. Ct. was required to comply with express or implied ruling of Ct. of Appeals’ decision. Fact that defendants had previously and unsuccessfully moved for stay of mandate with Appellate Ct. after said mandate had been issued did not require different result. As such, defendants’ only recourse was to seek stay with U.S. Supreme Ct.