Court Opinion

ID: 9936243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:57:39.691448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:35.084353
License: Public Domain

On application for rehearing the claimant relies onLambert v. Alabama Real Estate Commission, 490 So.2d 18
(Ala.Civ.App. 1986), as authority for his contention that the thirty-day time limit of Ala. Code (1975), § 41-22-20(d), applies, rather than the ten-day time limit of Ala. Code (1975), § 25-4-95. Specifically, the claimant contends that "Lambert demonstrates that any statute inconsistent with §41-22-20(d) has been replaced." We disagree. *Page 469 
In Lambert the pertinent judicial review requirements of the specific agency statute there involved, Ala. Code (1975), §34-27-38(c), did not conflict with § 41-22-20(d). Thus, this court was not faced with the issue it confronts in this case — whether the judicial review provisions of the AAPA or those of a specific agency statute, here § 25-4-95, govern where the latter is in conflict with the AAPA. It is this court's opinion that in such a situation the specific agency statute governs, not the AAPA.
OPINION EXTENDED; APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED.
WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.