Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenged the appointment of court reporters under App. R. 9(B), arguing for the entitlement to submit a narrative statement under App. R. 9(C) rather than a transcript, based on the claim that an officially appointed reporter must be a professional court reporter. The court rejected this interpretation, affirming the appointments of Corlett and Beebe as valid despite their non-professional status. Additionally, the appellant sought a writ of mandamus, asserting that Corlett's inability to type and his relocation impeded the process. The court outlined the requirements for such a writ, which include establishing a clear legal right, a duty to act by the respondent, and no adequate remedy at law. As the appellant had neither requested a transcript nor demonstrated its unavailability, the court found no clear legal right to the relief sought and affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of the writ of mandamus. The decision was supported by several concurring justices, resulting in the case's conclusion without favor to the appellant.
Legal Issues Addressed
Requirements for Issuance of Writ of Mandamussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the appellant did not demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested, as they had not attempted to obtain a transcript nor proven its unavailability.
Reasoning: To grant such a writ, the court must establish that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief requested, that the respondent has a clear legal duty to act, and that there is no adequate remedy at law available.
Responsibilities of Court Reporters under App. R. 9(B)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that appointed reporters do not need to be professional court reporters, as long as they are officially appointed, rejecting the appellant's argument for a narrative statement under App. R. 9(C).
Reasoning: The court rejects this interpretation, stating that it will not adopt a hypertechnical reading of App. R. 9(B), noting that Corlett and Beebe were indeed appointed.