Court Opinion

ID: 9645207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:16:19.5885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:45.982918
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for two reasons.
First, § 536.110.1 RSMo 1978 permits the petition for review to be filed within thirty days “after the mailing or delivery of the notice of the agency’s final decision.” The petition was filed within thirty days after delivery of the notice, which, in my opinion, was permissible under the plain meaning of the statute because the disjunctive — OR—is used. However, if the meaning is ambiguous or unclear, the statute should be construed to permit review on the merits.
Second, even if the thirty days begins to run upon mailing, Rule 44.01(e) cited in the principal opinion allows three extra days when the notice may be and is served by mail. The rule does not caution that it is inapplicable to judicial review of administrative decisions but rather, on its face, is plainly applicable to such proceedings. I would hold that it is applicable to review of administrative decisions. I believe that to hold Rule 44.01(e) not applicable simply renders the rule a trap into which any person will fall if they apply an ordinary understanding of the English language to the rule. Therefore, I dissent.