Court Opinion

ID: 9596751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:52:41.782026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:35.917257
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree with the dismissal because these appeals are moot. I write separately to acknowledge that these consolidated actions are in the same procedural posture as the recently decided case of Intl. Business Machines v. DOAS,2 which this Court decided on the merits. Under the rule established today, we should have dismissed the IBM appeal for failure to file an application. Overlooking a jurisdictional defect raised by neither party in an earlier case does not dispense with our continuing obligation to inquire into the jurisdictional bases of appeals brought before this Court. Having done so in these cases, I agree with the majority that, under the rationale of Rebich v. Miles,3 frustrated bidders who are appealing a trial court’s review of a state agency’s failure to award a bid must seek appellate review by discretionary application, but I would apply this rule prospectively.
*813General, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, C. Wilson DuBose, Elizabeth Patrick, James M. Hunter, Timothy H. Kratz, Meadows, Ichter & Trigg, Mark G. Trigg, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, John T. Marshall, for appellees.

 265 Ga. 215 (453 SE2d 706) (1995).

 264 Ga. 467 (448 SE2d 192) (1994).