Narrative Opinion Summary
The trial court's indefinite postponement of litigation lacks a legal or evidentiary basis. The Court emphasizes its obligation to enforce Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution, which mandates that all courts remain accessible and that every person is entitled to a remedy without denial, bias, or undue delay. Justice Cole supports granting the writ.
Legal Issues Addressed
Enforcement of Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court is obligated to ensure that litigation is not postponed indefinitely without justification, as it must uphold the constitutional right to accessible courts and timely remedies.
Reasoning: The Court emphasizes its obligation to enforce Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution, which mandates that all courts remain accessible and that every person is entitled to a remedy without denial, bias, or undue delay.
Judicial Action Lacking Legal or Evidentiary Basissubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's decision to indefinitely postpone litigation was challenged due to the absence of a supporting legal or evidentiary foundation.
Reasoning: The trial court's indefinite postponement of litigation lacks a legal or evidentiary basis.