Court Opinion

ID: 9575132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:11:53.065715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:49.709382
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur but wish to point out the significance of the second factor taken into account by the trial court, that is, the failure to obtain an extension. This second factor is an important component of a decision to dismiss the appeal. OCGA § 5-6-39 compliance is significant, although it is true that failure to get an extension is not, standing alone, a sufficient basis for dismissal.
The request for an extension plays an important part in the process because it allows the trial court to move the appeal process along or at least to determine at an early stage whether there is a good reason to allow the court reporter more than 30 days for the filing of the transcript, as required by OCGA § 5-6-42. Control of when the transcript is filed must remain in the court or the OCGA § 5-6-42 time limit will be rendered of little effect.
*239Decided November 26, 1991
Reconsideration denied December 11, 1991
L. David Wolfe & Associates, L. David Wolfe, Susan E. Teaster, for appellants.
Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, Robert C. Martin, Jr., for appellee.
Here, the failure to get an extension was caused by appellant, whereas it appears that the delay in transcript filing was not caused by appellant, unless we can say that seeking an extension from the judge would have hurried the transcription along.