Opinion ID: 1992821
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: motion to dismiss denied

Text: The case was determined on May 10, 1971 by an order of the trial court setting aside the order of the Board and remanding the cause to the Board for further proceedings. On May 19th, the Board gave notice of its intention to appeal, such notice having been given in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act, then Burns § 63-3019, the same now being IC X-XX-X-XX, and followed on June 15, 1971 with a praecipe for a transcript of the entire record. Several extensions of time for filing the record were granted to the appellant by this Court, and it was ultimately filed on December 29, 1971. It included a motion to correct errors filed June 9, 1971 and the trial court's ruling thereon entered September 28, 1971. It is the appellee's position that the appellant's notice of appeal was a nullity, and we agree in view of Indiana State Personnel Board v. Wilson (1971) 256 Ind. 674, 271 N.E.2d 448 and Indiana State Personnel Board v. Diggs (1971), 257 Ind. 156, 272 N.E.2d 868. We do not agree, however, that the appellant's failure to file a second praecipe for the record following the filing of and the ruling upon its motion to correct errors deprives this Court of jurisdiction. Appellate Rule 2(A) as amended November 30, 1972, requires that such praecipe be filed within thirty (30) days after the ruling upon the motion to correct errors. However, such time limitation was not in effect at the time of the remand order, the notice of appeal or the first motion to this Court for an extension of time within which to file the transcript. The notice of appeal and the motion for an extension of time were adequate for the purpose of notifying the appellee that an appeal would be taken. Had the transcript of the record been completed and certified prior to the ruling upon the motion to correct errors and the same consequently omitted therefrom, we would have an entirely different question, but such is not the case. We perceive no problem either to the appellee or to this Court by reason of the unorthodox sequence of events. Accordingly, the appellee's motion to dismiss is now overruled.