Court Opinion

ID: 9687289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:22:20.334209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:25.510855
License: Public Domain

LAWSON, Justice
(dissenting in part).
The majority of the court have not only given an affirmative answer to Question 1, but have gone further and have determined that the trial court in the case under consideration in the Coxxrt of Appeals acted within a reasonable time.
While we entertain some doubt as to whether an extension of time for the filing of the court reporter’s transcript of the evidence may be extended after the expiration of the sixty day period, we entertain the view that in any event such extension must be requested and acted upon within ninety days from the date on which the appeal was taken or within ninety days from the date of the court’s ruling on the motion for new trial, whichever date is later. We think such is the clear legislative intent of the provisions of Act No. 461, approved July 12, 1943 (1943 Gen.Acts, p. 423, as amended by Act No. 97, approved February 9, 1956, Acts of Alabama, 1956, Vol. 1, p. 143).
The holding of the majority will have the effect of making it almost impossible for *5this court and the Court of Appeals to determine when a cause is subject to dismissal although the transcript of the record has not been filed in this court within the requisite time according to the certificate of appeal, for there will be no way to determine whether an extension of time for the filing of the reporter’s transcript of the evidence will be granted by the trial court at some later date. We also disagree with the majority in what appears to be an effort to determine that in the case at hand the trial court did act within a reasonable time. We feel that that question addresses itself to the Court of Appeals in the first instance.
I am in accord with the majority’s answer to the second question.
GOODWYN, J., concurs in the.views expressed by LAWSON, J.