Kenzie v. Dalco Corp., 46525
| Decision Date | 06 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 46525,46525 |
| Citation | 245 N.W.2d 207,309 Minn. 495 |
| Parties | Walter O. KENZIE, Relator, v. DALCO CORPORATION, Respondent, Department of Employment Services, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Decisions of the commissioner of employment services will not be reviewed upon certiorari by the Minnesota Supreme Court unless the writ is issued and served upon the adverse party or parties within 33 days after the date of mailing notice of decision as required by Minn.St. 268.10, subd. 8, read together with Rule 126.01, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.
Walter O. Kenzie, pro se.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Frank W. Levin, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for State Emp. Services.
Considered by SHERAN, C.J., and OTIS and PETERSON, JJ., and reconsidered and decided by the court en banc.
Relator, W. O. Kenzie, sought review by writ of certiorari of a decision of the commissioner of employment services. By order filed March 15, 1976, the writ was discharged for relator's failing to serve it upon the respondent within the time prescribed by law.
Rule 115.01, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, provides as follows:
'Review of a decision of * * * (the) Department of Employment Services * * * may be had by securing issuance of a writ of certiorari within sixty (60) days after the party applying for such writ shall have received written notice of the decision sought to be reviewed, Unless an applicable statute prescribes a different period of time.' (Italics supplied.)
Under Rule 115.03(4), the petitioner is required to serve copies of the petition and the writ within 60 days, unless a different time is prescribed by statute.
A different time period is prescribed by Minn.St. 268.10, subd. 8, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
'Any such decision of the commissioner (of employment services) may be reviewed on certiorari by the supreme court provided such writ Is issued and served upon the adverse party or parties within 30 days after the date of mailing notice of any decision to him at his last known address.' (Italics supplied.)
In this case, the notice and order comprising the decision of the commissioner were mailed on December 12, 1975. Under Rule 126.01, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, which adopts Rules 6.01 and 6.05, Rules of Civil Procedure, the 30-day period provided for seeking review of the commissioner's decision by § 268.10, subd. 8, and the 3-day extension provided by Rule 6.05 would have expired on Thursday, January 15, 1976. The envelope containing the writ in this case was postmarked January 20, 1976. Service was therefore 5 days late.
A writ of certiorari will be discharged when not served within the time required by statute or rule. In re Consolidation of County Ditches, 165 Minn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soyka v. Comm'r Revenue
...“written notice” in the statute as synonymous with “service of a notice” in Rule 6.05.4 We applied Rule 6.05 in a similar fashion in Kenzie v. Dalco Corp., a case involving the statutory deadline to appeal a decision of the Commissioner of Employment Services. 309 Minn. 495, 245 N.W.2d 207 ......
-
Johnson v. Independent School Dist. No. 281
...of the writ cannot be extended by consent of the parties or by court action. See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 126.02; Kenzie v. Dalco, Corp., 309 Minn. 495, 497, 245 N.W.2d 207, 208 (1976). In this case, relator received notice of suspension on January 4, 1991. She received notice of her reassignment ......
-
EN v. Special School Dist. No. 1
...by recognizing that courts have applied the rules of civil procedure beyond the district court arena. See Kenzie v. Dalco Corp., 309 Minn. 495, 497, 245 N.W.2d 207, 208 (1976) (applying three-day extension of rule 6.05 to statutory procedural rule for filing an appeal from a decision of the......
-
In re Welfare of JR, Jr.
...of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Tischendorf v. Tischendorf, 321 N.W.2d 405, 409 (Minn.1982); Kenzie v. Dalco Corporation, 309 Minn. 495, 497, 245 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Minn.1976); Schaust v. Town Bd. Of Hollywood Tp., Carver County, 295 Minn. 571, 573, 204 N.W.2d 646, 648 (Minn. 1973). W......