Court Opinion

ID: 9586535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:12:26.410407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:42.223115
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree that the trial court erred in dismissing the appeal; however, I would reverse rather than remand for further proceedings. Under the undisputed facts, the delay in filing the transcript could *117not be construed to be “caused” by Baker. He promptly ordered the transcript and paid for the transcript, and he made reasonable inquiry as to the status of its preparation. He had no control over the court reporter, who was the official court reporter of the trial judge. If Baker had sought an extension of time, it would have been “the duty of the trial judge to grant such extensions of time as may be necessary to enable the court reporter to complete his transcript. ...” OCGA § 5-6-42. Health problems in the family of the court reporter caused the 34-day late filing in this case, not Baker’s failure to seek an order granting an extension of time.
Decided April 20, 1990.
Kelly, Denney, Pease & Allison, Paul R. Bennett, for appellant.
Neely & Player, Edgar A. Neely, Jr., Tami Lewis Brown, William C. Thompson, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Smith and Justice Weltner join in this special concurrence.