Director of State Dept. of Indus. Relations v. Nolin
| Decision Date | 12 September 1979 |
| Citation | 374 So.2d 903 |
| Parties | DIRECTOR OF the STATE of Alabama DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, v. Carolyn F. NOLIN. Civ. 1888. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
George Cocoris, General Counsel and Frank D. Marsh, Asst. General Counsel, State of Ala., Department of Industrial Relations, Montgomery, for appellant.
Thomas B. Prickett, II, Oneonta, for appellee.
This is an unemployment compensation case.
The claimant, Nolin, was denied benefits under Alabama's Unemployment Compensation Act. She appealed this determination to the Board of Appeals of the Department of Industrial Relations which upheld the denial of benefits. On July 22, 1977, claimant filed an appeal to the Blount County Circuit Court. After a trial de novo the trial court entered judgment in favor of the claimant. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (Department) appeals from that judgment.
The department contends that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear claimant's appeal and that the appeal should have been dismissed. We agree with this contention and reverse.
Section 25-4-95, Code of Alabama (1975) governs the procedure necessary to institute an appeal from a decision by the board of appeals. This section provides that an appeal may be perfected by filing, within ten days after the decision of the board has become final, a notice of appeal "in the circuit court of the county of the residence of the claimant . . . ." The only exception to this requirement applies where the claimant does not reside in this state at the time the appeal is taken. The evidence is undisputed that the claimant's county of residence at the time the appeal was filed was St. Clair County and not Blount County.
Appellee argues that this provision of the statute is a venue requirement which was waived by the Department when it failed to plead venue before trial. We do not agree. Although the effect of this particular requirement is a question of first impression in Alabama, we have held that the requirements of § 25-4-95 are jurisdictional and that a failure to comply will necessitate dismissal of the appeal. Quick v. Utotem of Alabama, Inc., 365 So.2d 1245 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). A number of other jurisdictions have found substantially similar requirements to be jurisdictional and required dismissal of the appeal when it was filed in the wrong county. See, e. g., Scott v. Nevada Employment Security Department, 70 Nev. 555, 278 P.2d 602 (1954); Hansen v. Division of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte General Motors Corp.
...for that appeal. The Court of Civil Appeals based its decision on a line of cases beginning with Director of State Dep't of Indus. Relations v. Nolin, 374 So.2d 903 (Ala.Civ.App.1979). All the cases in that line held that the requirement that an appeal from the State Board of Appeals be fil......
-
Hilley v. Gm
...for that appeal. The Court of Civil Appeals based its decision on a line of cases beginning with Director of State Dep't of Indus. Relations v. Nolin, 374 So. 2d 903 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979). All the cases in that line held that the requirement that an appeal from the State Board of Appeals be......
-
Hilley v. General Motors Corp.
...was properly filed in the county of residence of any of the participating claimants. In Director of the State of Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Nolin, 374 So.2d 903 (Ala.Civ.App.1979), this court held that the trial court in Blount County did not have jurisdiction to hear the......
-
Alabama Dept. of Public Safety v. Barbour
...(Ala.Civ.App.1982); Cruce v. Demarco Concrete & Block Co., 380 So.2d 900 (Ala.Civ.App.1980); and Director of State Dep't of Indus. Relations v. Nolin, 374 So.2d 903 (Ala.Civ.App.1979)). The supreme court overruled that line of cases and held that the statute does not confer jurisdiction but......