Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Va. App. 672

353 S.E.2d 168

Jordan v. Price

Court of Appeals of Virginia

Decided February 17, 1987

Court of Appeals of Virginia · decided 1987-02-17

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[o]rders extending the time for filing must be prospective and not retrospective”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 7 Va. App. 503 - Long v. Commonwealth

Relies on 1 Va. App. 378 - Barrett v. Barrett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-02-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2011

11 state decisions

401987199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 Opinion

HODGES, J.

¶2 In this cause the appellant petitions for a rehearing, alleging that we erroneously dismissed his appeal for failure to timely file a transcript of the proceedings below. In our order of dismissal entered December 3, 1986, we found that the transcript should have been filed by March 24, 1986 but was not filed until April 21, 1986.

¶3 In asserting error, appellant relies on an order entered by the trial court on April 3, 1986 extending the time of filing to April 30, 1986. We declined to recognize this order because it was entered on a date subsequent to the time prescribed for filing.

¶4 Rule 5A:8 provides that the transcript shall be filed within 60 days after entry of judgment. It further authorizes the trial court to extend such filing date for good cause shown. It is obvious that the transcript is indispensable to the disposition of this appeal and therefore jurisdictional. See Barrett v. Barrett, 1 Va. App. 378, 380, 339 S.E.2d 208, 210 (1986).

¶5 We hold that the transcript must be timely filed, or leave extending the filing date must be granted before the deadline occurs, and not after. Orders extending the time for filing must be prospective and not retrospective.

¶6 For the reasons stated above, the petition is denied.

¶7 Denied.

¶8 Baker, J., and Barrow, J., concurred.

/3/vaapp/672 · .json · Public domain