Court Opinion

ID: 9521559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:07:31.974298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:55.103741
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent and would consider the appeal on its merits. The record shows that the respondent received notice of the Commission’s decision on January 20, 1982. On February 3, 1982, its attorney mailed a check to the Commission in the amount of the probable cost of the record. On February 5, 1982, his attorney was advised by telephone that the check had been received and a receipt had been issued. Three days later, well within the 20-day period, the praecipe was filed and the writ of certiorari was issued. The receipt was filed with the clerk’s office on February 10, 1982, long before petitioner was required to answer the writ. The intent of the statute is to assure that the Commission receives the sums due it for the preparation of the record. A litigant should not be penalized because of the present sad state of service furnished by the postal department. The assurances of an attorney and officer of this court that he has paid a certain sum of money should be accepted at face value. Clearly there was compliance with the statute here and dismissal under these circumstances is a miscarriage of justice. JUSTICE SIMON joins in this dissent.