Opinion

State Tenure Commission v. Anniston City Board of Education

  • 56 Ala. App. 101
  • 319 So. 2d 720
  • 1975 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 490
Court
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Filed
Aug 6, 1975
Status
Published
Author
Holmes
On the bench
Bradley, Holmes, Wright
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.8%

The opinion

HOLMES, Judge.

The Anniston City Board of Education did not renew the contract of a teacher employed in the city school system. The teacher appealed to the State Tenure Commission. The Tenure Commission made a decision from which the Anniston Board of Education filed a petition for mandamus in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County, and that court set aside the action of the Tenure Commission.

Thereupon, the State Tenure Commission appealed the decision of the circuit court to this court.

The appellee-Board of Education has filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal in that the appeal was not timely filed. This court has no alternative but to grant appellee’s motion.

The record reveals that the judgment of the circuit court appealed from was rendered on March 11, 1975. The appeal was perfected on April 14, 1975, by the filing of the notice of appeal with the circuit clerk and the filing that same day by the Attorney General of this state of an election to make no bond securing the payment of costs.

The law is clear that there is a thirty day time limit on appeals from final judgments in proceedings for mandamus. See Tit. 7, § 1074, Code of Ala.1940; Mayfield v. Court of County Commissioners, 148 Ala. 548 , 41 So. 932 ; Ex parte Campbell, 130 Ala. 171 , 30 So. 385 . A former attorney general, in a written opinion, stated that where a right is sought to be enforced by mandamus, the party having an adverse judgment has thirty days in which to appeal. Failing to do so within the time prescribed by statute the judgment of the court becomes final and effective. Quarterly Report of the Attorney General, July-September 1940, Yol. XX, p. 127.

*102 It is equally clear that this court has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. As our Presiding Judge Wright stated in Mears v. Nail, 54 Ala. 610 , 311 So.2d 435 :

“The time prescribed by statute for taking an appeal is jurisdictional. An appeal not timely taken will be dismissed on motion or ex mero motu.”

The appeal in this instance, not being taken within thirty days as required by law, is due to be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.