Court Opinion

ID: 9726260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:39:47.516959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:24.625088
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
The majority holds that because the June 11, 1993 "entry" was contained in the Chronological Case Summary and because the CCS is an "official record" of the court, such entry, of itself, justified the November 22, 1993 nune pro tune order. I fully agree that the June 11 writing constitutes a sufficient written memorial upon which to base the nune pro tune order. I do not, however, believe that such result may be premised upon the giving of some independent judicial *1292significance to the Chronological Case Summary. That "record" is precisely what its title imports. It is a summary of judicial events which have taken place in the case. It does not have status independent of the event or events which are summarized. It is little more than a short-hand index of all of the proceedings which have taken place. Those individual events have significance in and of themselves but only if there is some other document or record of the event. Again, the summary does not have status or significance independent of the judicial events themselves.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the telephonic conference covered the matter of the prospective ruling upon the Motion to Correct Errors. There is no doubt that the court and the parties contemplated that the ruling might be made after August 12, 1993. There is no doubt that the subject matter of the conference has been memorialized in writing and there is no doubt in my mind that the nune pro tune order was valid. For this reason I agree that the Andersons' prac-cipe was timely filed.
In all other respects I fully concur in the majority opinion.