Continental Sports Corp. v. Department of Labor and Industries of State of Wash., 16237-7-II
| Decision Date | 17 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 16237-7-II,16237-7-II |
| Citation | 77 Wn.App. 17,889 P.2d 506 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL SPORTS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent. |
Gail E. Mautner, Lane Powell Spears Lubersky, Seattle, for appellant.
Penny L. Allen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondent.
The Superior Court affirmed a ruling by the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (the Board) that Continental Sports Corporation (Continental) failed to timely appeal a "Notice and Order of Assessment of Industrial Insurance Taxes". Continental appeals, and we reverse.
In March 1990, the Department of Labor and Industries (the Department) assessed Continental for industrial insurance taxes in the amount of $116,235. On March 19, 1990, the Department served Continental with notice of the assessment. In the notice, the Department stated "that any appeal ... must be made within thirty days of the date of service by filing an appeal with the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and sending a copy of said appeal to the Director of the Department of Labor and Industries, by mail or personal delivery, pursuant to RCW 51.48.131." 1
On April 18, 1990, the thirtieth day after service, see CR 6(a), Continental gave Federal Express a notice of appeal and instructed Federal Express to deliver the notice to the Board and the Department. Federal Express guaranteed next-day delivery for a fee of $35. On April 19, 1990, the thirty-first day after service, see CR 6(a), Federal Express delivered the notice as instructed.
The Department moved to dismiss Continental's appeal on grounds it was untimely. An administrative law judge recommended denial of the motion. However, the Board granted the motion, and the Superior Court affirmed. Continental then appealed to this court.
RCW 51.48.131 provides in part:
A notice of assessment becomes final thirty days from the date the notice of assessment was served upon the employer unless: (1) A written request for reconsideration is filed with the department of labor and industries, or (2) an appeal is filed with the board of industrial insurance appeals and sent to the director of labor and industries by mail or delivered in person. The appeal shall not be denied solely on the basis that it was filed with both the board and the director if it was filed with either the board or the director.
As both parties read this statute, a notice of appeal is timely if mailed on the thirtieth day of the 30-day appeal period. 2 The Department concedes that Continental's notice of appeal would have been "mailed" on the thirtieth day if Continental had deposited it with the United States Postal Service. The Department contends, however, that Continental's notice was not "mailed" on the thirtieth day because Continental deposited it with Federal Express.
Generally, postal regulations prohibit the carriage of mail by private express. 39 CFR § 310.2(a) 3; see also, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1693-97. 4 However, they allow the carriage of certain "extremely urgent letters" by private express. 39 CFR § 310.2(b) 5; 39 CFR § 310.2(c); 6 39 CFR § 320.6; 7 see also, 39 U.S.C. § 601. A letter is "conclusively presumed" to be extremely urgent "if the amount paid for private carriage of the letter is at least three dollars or twice the applicable U.S. postage for First Class Mail (including priority mail) whichever is the greater." 39 CFR § 320.6(c). It follows that a letter for which the sender pays more than twice the applicable U.S. postage, and not less than $3, is carried "by mail" when it is carried either by private express or by the United States Postal Service. 8
It is undisputed that Continental paid Federal Express' fee for next-day delivery. Thus, it mailed its notice as an "extremely urgent letter", and the notice was "sent ... by mail" on the last day of the 30-day appeal period.
Reversed and remanded to the Board for further proceedings.
1 Exhibit 3.
2 According to the parties, the Board construes RCW 51.48.131 to mean that a notice of appeal is "filed" when mailed. Neither party assails the Board's construction.
3 39 CFR § 310.2(a) states in pertinent part:
(a) It is generally unlawful under the Private Express Statutes for any person other than the Postal Service in any manner to send or carry a letter on a post route or in any manner to cause or assist such activity. Violation may result in injunction, fine or imprisonment or both and payment of postage lost as a result of the illegal activity.
4 18 U.S.C. § 1696 provides in part:
(a) Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law, or from any city, town or place to any other city, town, or place, between which the mail is regularly carried, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The other cited statutes are similar though not the same.
5 39 CFR § 310.2(b) provides:
(b) Activity described in paragraph (a) of this section is lawful with respect to a letter if:
(1)(i) The letter is enclosed in an envelope or other suitable cover;
(ii) The amount of postage which would have been charged on the letter if it had been sent through the Postal Service is paid by stamps, or postage meter stamps, on the cover or by other methods approved by the Postal Service;
(iii) The name and address of the person for whom the letter is intended appear on the cover;
(iv) The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hargrave v. Univ. of Wash.
... ... and Tenure").) The Business School criteria state that "[t]he candidate for tenure and promotion to ... , two of whom are from the candidate's department. (Faculty Code 2454; Peterson Decl. Ex. F ... Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, ... ...
-
Continental Sports Corp. v. Department of Labor and Industries
... ... Continental Sports Corp. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 77 Wash.App. 17, 20 n. 7, 889 P.2d 506 (1995); 39 C.F.R. § 310.2(b)-(c); 39 C.F.R. § 320.6(c). The ... Garrison v. State Nursing Bd., 87 Wash.2d 195, 196, 550 P.2d 7 (1976). In attempting to discern the ordinary meaning ... ...
-
Continental Sports Corp. v. Department of Labor and Industries of State of Wash.
...126 Wn.2d 1022 ... 896 P.2d 64 ... Continental Sports Corporation ... Department of Labor and Industries of State of Washington ... NO. 62709-6 ... Supreme Court of Washington ... June 08, 1995 ... Appeal From: 16237-7-II, 77 Wash.App. 17, 889 P.2d 506 ... Petition For ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...119 Wn.App. 275, 78 P.3d 177 (2003): 49.6(4), 51.6(2), 51.8(3)(a), 59.6(1), 59.6(6) Cont'l Sports Corp. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 77 Wn.App. 17, 889 P.2d 506 (1995), aff'd on other grounds, 128 Wn.2d 594, 910 P.2d 1284 (1996): 2.6, 5.6(2), 6.6(5) Cook v. King County, 9 Wn.App. 50, 510 P.2......
-
§2.6 Analysis
...before the superior courts, even if the rules conflict with a relevant statute. See also Cont'l Sports Corp. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 77 Wn.App. 17, 18, 889 P.2d 506 (1995) (applying CR 6(a) without discussion to a proceeding with the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals), aff'don other......