Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ex parte RIVERCHASE GALLERIA MALL et al. (IN RE: Thelma Balfour v. Riverchase Galleria Mall et al.).
“ ‘Mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary writ, to be issued only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.’ Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d 497, 499 (Ala.1995). The question of subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 805 (Ala.2000).”
Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 888 So.2d 478, 480 (Ala .2003).
Section 12–12–70(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: “Any party may appeal from a final judgment of the district court in a civil case by filing notice of appeal in the district court, within 14 days from the date of the judgment․” January 27, 2015, was 14 days after January 13, 2015, the date the district court's judgment was entered. The materials submitted for our review by the defendants indicate that the Jefferson County circuit clerk signed and dated the notice of appeal as having been filed on January 28, 2015, and an entry on the State Judicial Information System indicates that Balfour filed her notice of appeal on January 28, 2015. However, the materials submitted for our review by Balfour demonstrate that the notice of appeal is clearly date stamped as having been “filed” by the “district civil division” on January 27, 2015, and Balfour received a receipt for payment of a filing fee dated “01/27/2015.”
Thus, the materials before us clearly demonstrate that Balfour's notice of appeal was filed on January 27, 2015, and that Balfour paid a filing fee that same day. Therefore, the defendants have not shown a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to dismiss the appeal of the district court's judgment as untimely; therefore, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
THOMAS, Judge.
THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN and DONALDSON, JJ., concur. MOORE, J., concurs in the result, without writing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2140859.
Decided: August 21, 2015
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)