Opinion ID: 1119164
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: litigant's lawyer who approves the form of a nisi prius order becomes obligated to monitor the case filings in the court clerk's office for the appealable event's occurrence (the order's filing)

Text: The process [16] for finalizing the journal entry in this case was initiated when the trial judge mailed to the parties a copy of a February 3, 1995 minute and apprised them of the ruling that denied the motion for new trial. Bushert's counsel then prepared the February 13 memorial of the nisi prius decision and Hughes' counsel approved it. The trial judge signed the order. It was filed on February 16, 1995. Although the journalization process set in motion by the trial court and carried out by the partiestracks the immemorial courthouse practice, the procedure so used is no longer acceptable. Neither the parties nor the judge attempted to comply with the current legislative requirements that govern the preparation and mailing of orders memorializing matters taken under advisement. [17] By approving the February 13 order Hughes' counsel acquiesced in a practice shortcut for the order's preparation and entry. She can hardly be heard to claim that she is entitled to the protection of the very procedure which she helped to circumvent. Upon approving the February 13 memorial and forwarding it to the victor's lawyer, Hughes' counsel became obligated to monitor further filings in the case for the appealable event's occurrence the memorial's filing  in order to meet the deadline for bringing an appeal. [18]