In the Interest of J. B.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Interest of J. B.

394 S.E.2d 143, 195 Ga. App. 520, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 533

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 4, 1990

DocketA90A0306

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 394 S.E.2d 143 (In the Interest of J. B.) 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

In the Interest of J. B., 394 S.E.2d 143, 195 Ga. App. 520, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Appellants, two juveniles, appealed following an adjudication that they are delinquent and in need of treatment and rehabilitation. In their sole enumeration of error, appellants contend the juvenile court exceeded its authority in ordering appellants to have their hair cut. Held:

We cannot review appellants’ enumeration of error inasmuch as we find no written order in the record requiring the cutting of appellants’ hair and we have been informed by the clerk of the juvenile court that the court’s order was never reduced to a written order. Georgia Television v. Castellani, 257 Ga. 549 (361 SE2d 381). It follows that this case must be “dismissed without prejudice to the appellants’ right to request the [juvenile] court to enter an appealable judgment, and without prejudice to the appellants’ right to file an appeal upon entry of the judgment.” Georgia Television v. Castellani, 257 Ga. 549, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

Carley, C. J., and Sognier, J., concur. *521 Watson & Watson, Herman A. Watson III, Bruce S. Harvey, for appellants. Michael E. Neidenbach, Solicitor, for appellee.

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

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Appellants, two juveniles, appealed following an adjudication that they are delinquent and in need of treatment and rehabilitation. In their sole enumeration of error, appellants contend the juvenile court exceeded its authority in ordering appellants to have their hair cut. Held:

We cannot review appellants’ enumeration of error inasmuch as we find no written order in the record requiring the cutting of appellants’ hair and we have been informed by the clerk of the juvenile court that the court’s order was never reduced to a written order. Georgia Television v. Castellani, 257 Ga. 549 (361 SE2d 381). It follows that this case must be “dismissed without prejudice to the appellants’ right to request the [juvenile] court to enter an appealable judgment, and without prejudice to the appellants’ right to file an appeal upon entry of the judgment.” Georgia Television v. Castellani, 257 Ga. 549, supra.

Appeal dismissed.

Carley, C. J., and Sognier, J., concur. *521 Watson & Watson, Herman A. Watson III, Bruce S. Harvey, for appellants. Michael E. Neidenbach, Solicitor, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 S.E.2d 143, 195 Ga. App. 520, 1990 Ga. App. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-j-b-gactapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack