# Martin v. State Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · March 16, 2001 · 814 So. 2d 290

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7750097

## Case

- **Full name:** Josephine Martin v. State Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** March 16, 2001
- **Citations:** 814 So. 2d 290; 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 111; 2001 WL 259277
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Crawley
- **Judges:** Yates, Thompson, Pittman, Murdock, Crawley
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7750097

## Opinion text

CRAWLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I conclude that the postmark date can be the date of filing for the initial notice of appeal and for the petition for judicial review. Ala.Code 1975, § 41-22~20(d), discusses both the “notice of appeal” and the “petition for judicial review,” and then, several sentences later, states, “Any notice required herein which is mailed by the petitioner, certified mail return receipt requested, shall be deemed to have been filed as of the date it is postmarked.” I conclude that the phrase “[a]ny notice” applies to both the initial notice of appeal and the petition for judicial review; therefore, I would hold that Martin timely filed her petition for judicial review, because the petition was timely postmarked. This interpretation of § 41-22-20(d) furthers the court’s policy of reviewing and adjudicating cases on their merits. State ex rel. P.A.W. v. P.A.D., 591 So.2d 98 (Ala.Civ.App.1991).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7750097. Public record. Not legal advice.