Bowman v. Worland School Dist., 4418
| Decision Date | 29 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 4418,4418 |
| Parties | Larry BOWMAN et al., Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. WORLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Body Corporate and Political Subdivision in Washakie County, Wyoming, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
David N. Hitchcock, Laramie, for appellants.
Elmer J. Scott, of Scott & Jones, Worland, for appellee.
Before McEWAN, * C. J., McCLINTOCK, RAPER and THOMAS, JJ., and ARMSTRONG, D. J.
Larry Bowman and others have appealed from the decision of the District Court of Washakie County, Wyoming, dated March 21, 1974, filed in that court on March 22, 1974, and by which judgment plaintiffs were each denied recovery of one-half month's pay which had previously been deducted from their salaries as teachers in the Worland School District upon termination of their contracts by written notification of the teacher. 1
Rule 73(a), W.R.C.P. directs that an appeal to this Court 'shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the district court within thirty days from the entry of the judgment or final order appealed from and serving the same in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 * * *'. Rule 58(b), W.R.C.P. directs that a judgment 'shall be deemed to be entered whenever a form of such judgment or final order, signed by the trial judge, is filed in the office of the clerk of the court * * *'. The record discloses that notice of appeal was filed in the district court on April 23, 1974, with certificate of service endorsed thereon showing that copy thereof was mailed to counsel for appellee on April 22, 1974, with parenthetical notation that April 21 was a Sunday.
Counting the thirty days in accordance with Rule 6, W.R.C.P., we must conclude that the thirtieth day from the entry of judgment was Sunday, April 21, so that the last permissible date for such filing was Monday, April 22. The notice of appeal not having been filed on that date, but only placed in the mail, we are compelled to hold that the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days from the entry of the judgment and therefore must dismiss the appeal even though no motion to that effect has been filed in behalf of appellee.
We take this action reluctantly but in the firm belief that it is dictated by the rule itself. In addition to the direction that the appeal shall be taken within thirty days, Rule 73(a) expressly provides that 'Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the supreme court deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the apeal.' (Emphasis supplied.) This can only mean that timely filing of the notice of appeal is a strict requirement. The only relief from the consequences of failure to do this is contained in the rule itself which provides that 'upon a showing of excusable neglect the district court in any action may extend the time for filing the notice of appeal not exceeding thirty days * * *'. No attempt has been made to bring the case at bar within the scope of that exception.
In King v. State, Wyo., 376 P.2d 871, where the notice of appeal was filed one day late and the record on appeal was filed three days late, this Court, upon motion of the State, dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with Rules 73(a) and 83(g). We have dismissed appeals for failure timely to file the record on appeal, Douglas Reservoirs Water Users Association v. Garst, Wyo., 451 P.2d 451, and even where the district court had granted an extension of time for filing the record but exceeding the ninety days permitted by the rule, Wilson v. Burridge, Wyo., 365 P.2d 195.
Dismissal of the appeal under circumstances such as appear in the record before us appears to be the generally accepted practice in both federal and state jurisdictions, and it has frequently been said that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. If this is true, then the disposition of this appeal is governed by Wyoming State Treasurer v. Niezwaag, Wyo., 444 P.2d 327, 328, and Big Horn Coal Company v. Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Company, Inc., 67 Wyo. 300, 224 P.2d 172, 177, in both of which cases it was held that this Court, notwithstanding the failure of any party to raise the question, must independently consider and pass upon its jurisdiction.
Without attempting an exhaustive research into the question, we have found a number of state decisions that adhere to the position that timely filing is jurisdictional, even under rules of court. Thus, in Nu-Way Associates, Inc. v. Keefe, 15 Cal.App.3d 926, 93 Cal.Rptr. 614, 615, a California Court of Appeals, considering the question of timely filing under court rule, refers to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals, some of which involved statutory requirements, as establishing the following governing propositions:
'In civil cases the time requirements for taking an appeal are mandatory, and appellate courts are without jurisdiction to consider late appeals. (Cases cited.) Jurisdiction to entertain such a late appeal cannot be conferred 'by the consent or stipulation of the parties, estoppel, or waiver.' (Cases cited.) The rule is applicable even though the notice of appeal is filed but one day late. (Cases cited.) * * *
The appeal was dismissed upon the court's own motion.
In Kernodle v. Boney, 260 N.C. 774, 133 S.E.2d 697, 698, where the appeal was not timely filed, the Supreme Court of North Carolina, 'ex mero motu, dismisses the appellant's appeal for failure to file within the time fixed by the rules'.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blake v. Rupe
...538 P.2d 24, reh. den., Matter of Final Proofs of Appropriation of Following Water Rights, Wyo., 541 P.2d 791; and Bowman v. Worland School Dist., Wyo., 531 P.2d 889."Even though these jurisdictional deficiencies were not called to our attention by the parties, it was, nevertheless, our unh......
-
Carlson v. Carlson
...Inc. v. Parks, 704 P.2d 702 (Wyo.1985); Worland School District v. Bowman, 445 P.2d 364 (Wyo.1968), dismissed on appeal after remand 531 P.2d 889 (Wyo.1975); Goodman v. Kelly, 390 P.2d 244 (Wyo.1964). In applying these rules, the question of whether there is an ambiguity is a question of la......
-
Department of Revenue and Taxation v. Irvine
...without regard for when the judgment is actually received by a party. 9 Carr v. Hopkin, Wyo.1976, 556 P.2d 221; Bowman v. Worland School District, Wyo.1975, 531 P.2d 889; Sun Land & Cattle Co. v. Brown, Wyo.1964, 387 P.2d 1004; Rule 2.01, Second, we are not confronted with a circumstance wh......
-
Rutledge v. Vonfeldt
...Co. v. Brown, Wyo., 387 P.2d 1004 (1964). Our Rule 73(a), W.R.C.P. is patterned after old Rule 73(a), F.R.C.P. (Bowman v. Worland School District, Wyo., 531 P.2d 889, 891 (1975)), and the federal law, which is persuasive, is consistent to the effect that a judgment is not final for purposes......