Short answer. Yes. Rule 51, Section 7 lets an appealed judgment be affirmed as to some appellants and reversed as to others, with the case proceeding afterward as if separate actions had been filed, and costs adjudged as the court deems proper for each.

What the law says

an appealed judgment may be affirmed as to some of the appellants, and reversed as to others, and the case shall thereafter be proceeded with, so far as necessary, as if separate actions had been begun and prosecuted; and execution of the judgment of affirmance may be had accordingly, and costs may be adjudged in such cases, as the court shall deem proper.

Rule 51, Section 7 — Judgment where there are several parties. Read the full provision →

Different outcomes for different appellants

Section 7 recognizes that a single appealed case can still produce different results for different parties. An appealed judgment may be affirmed as to some of the appellants, and reversed as to others. The Court of Appeals is not forced to treat every appellant identically simply because they appealed together, since each appellant's own arguments and record may differ substantially.

The case splits going forward

Once outcomes diverge, the case is not left tangled — it shall thereafter be proceeded with, so far as necessary, as if separate actions had been begun and prosecuted. Practically, each appellant's portion of the case moves forward on its own footing from that point, consistent with whatever the court decided for that appellant specifically, rather than being bound to a single unified outcome.

Execution and costs follow the split outcome

The consequences track the divided result too: execution of the judgment of affirmance may be had accordingly, and costs may be adjudged in such cases, as the court shall deem proper. An appellant against whom the judgment was affirmed can face execution, while costs are apportioned as the court sees fit given the mixed result across the different appellants in the same case.

Why this flexibility matters for co-appellants

Appellants who joined the same appeal do not necessarily share the same grounds, the same trial court record, or the same degree of culpability or liability, so a rule that forced a single outcome for everyone would either give a weak appellant an undeserved reversal or deny a strong one the relief their own case supports. Letting the Court of Appeals treat each appellant's claim on its own footing keeps the appeal's outcome tied to each individual record, rather than to whatever result the group as a whole happens to secure.

What this section does not do

Section 7 does not require the Court of Appeals to split the outcome — it applies only when the record actually supports different results for different appellants, and a case where all appellants share the same relevant facts and legal grounds will still typically receive a single, unified disposition. The split-outcome mechanism binds each appellant to their own individual result; an appellant affirmed against cannot rely on a co-appellant's reversal to escape execution, since Section 7 treats the divided case as if separate actions had proceeded.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.