Reedy v. Bussell
Court have resolved the main appeal, and the contretemps about the language of the minute order was never raised, and played no part in our analysis of the case. The issue is consequently moot. A court will not continue with the review of an . . . award . . . if the award does not affect the present relations of the parties, . . . (Consol. etc. Corp. v. United A. etc. Workers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 859, 862.)
Of course, had the issue been raised, it could have properly been resolved in the context of that other appeal. Our power to resolve apparent conflicts between the language of a minute order and other aspects of the trial court record does not depend upon the filing of a separate appeal; it depends upon the existence of a record to evaluate. (See, e.g., People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166; People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599; In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 731, fn. 4.)
The appeal is dismissed.
Comments on Reedy v. Bussell