Cox v. Estes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cox v. Estes

249 S.E.2d 621, 147 Ga. App. 578, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2855

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1978

Docket56271

StatusPublished

This text of 249 S.E.2d 621 (Cox v. Estes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. Estes, 249 S.E.2d 621, 147 Ga. App. 578, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2855 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

"There is a presumption in favor of the regularity and legality of all proceedings in the superior court.” Touchton v. Stewart, 229 Ga. 303 (190 SE2d 912) (1972). Appellants, in this appeal from the order of the trial court dismissing their appeal because of their "unreasonable delay in the processing of the appeal in this case, which the court finds to be inexcusable,” now fail in their duty under our Rule 18 (c) (3) "to demonstrate reversible error affirmatively by the reeord” (Smith v. Forrester, 132 Ga. App. 426 (1) (208 SE2d 199) (1974) and cits.); and "[i]n these circumstances we have insufficient cause to overturn the judgment of the trial court.” Rambo v. Fulton Financial Corp., 145 Ga. App. 791, 792 (245 SE2d 12) (1978).

Additionally, from our review of the record we cannot say that the trial court was without justification in finding that there was unreasonable delay in processing the appeal, and that the delay was inexcusable.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Webb, Judge.

"There is a presumption in favor of the regularity and legality of all proceedings in the superior court.” Touchton v. Stewart, 229 Ga. 303 (190 SE2d 912) (1972). Appellants, in this appeal from the order of the trial court dismissing their appeal because of their "unreasonable delay in the processing of the appeal in this case, which the court finds to be inexcusable,” now fail in their duty under our Rule 18 (c) (3) "to demonstrate reversible error affirmatively by the reeord” (Smith v. Forrester, 132 Ga. App. 426 (1) (208 SE2d 199) (1974) and cits.); and "[i]n these circumstances we have insufficient cause to overturn the judgment of the trial court.” Rambo v. Fulton Financial Corp., 145 Ga. App. 791, 792 (245 SE2d 12) (1978).

Additionally, from our review of the record we cannot say that the trial court was without justification in finding that there was unreasonable delay in processing the appeal, and that the delay was inexcusable.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.E.2d 621, 147 Ga. App. 578, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-estes-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack