Court Opinion

ID: 9777321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:07:29.724643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:52.515884
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the per curiam issued this date because I think there were very special circumstances involved in this matter which could be used to mitigate the failure of the petitioner to comply with the standard rules of the court. All parties were advised from the beginning that the transcript had not been ordered although the notice of appeal had been given. It was petitioner’s intention to try to raise the money to pay for the appeal in time to meet these deadlines. As I understand the record, the court reporters led the petitioner’s attorney to believe they could complete the records in the limited amount of time which was given. The money was advanced to the reporters, as is required by them, before they started typing. From a reading of the record it appears to me that both reporters led the petitioner to believe they could complete the transcripts in the amount of time allocated from the date of receipt of payment. They would not or could not complete their end of the bargain. It is not infrequent that we have to delay the whole process of court to wait on a court reporter. This seems to be the standard rather than the exception. In this case the reporters should have been fully aware that they could not complete the transcript in the time allowed after taking petitioner’s money. In reviewing the record, it seems to me that the attorney for petitioner did, indeed, make a good faith effort to comply with our rules, and did, in effect, substantially comply with them. There is absolutely no evidence that a fraud was perpetrated on or even attempted to be perpetrated against this court. Therefore, in view of the special circumstances I would make an exception to our rule and I would allow the appeal to be filed in this case.