Ex parte State of Alabama Department of Revenue. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Gateway Gaming, LLC v. State of Alabama Department of Revenue)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 8/17/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110798 Ex p a r t e S t a t e o f Alabama Department o f Revenue PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Gateway Gaming, LLC v. S t a t e o f Alabama Department o f R e v e n u e ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t BRYAN, The Court, CV-12-900004) Judge. State Department") of Alabama petitions this Department court for a of Revenue writ of ("the mandamus 2110798 ordering the assessment We Montgomery appeal deny the filed rental tax Gateway an appealed i s s u e d an sought to 9(g)(1)a., § 2012, within filed a ALD 30 notice within not 30 Gateway sent a n o t i c e tax assessment. Code 1975. final order f i l i n g a notice court the the Gateway appeal a to within 30 issued entry with of the the days from the notice the entry the of the of date 3, Gateway However, appeal f o r the the January court. ALJ's order. appeal to counsel 2 On ALJ's order, circuit required by of a p p e a l w i t h (Emphasis added.) the of 2011, t a x p a y e r o r t h e d e p a r t m e n t may appeal days of heard D e c e m b e r 5, On a p p e a l was 40-2A- circuit file Department's § f i n a l order." of $604,550.87. Under from days of the the ("ALJ"). Ala. the of the of assessment court, [ALD] did tax- ("Gateway"). a final to decision law j u d g e by Gateway a circuit administrative of e n t r y LLC amount ("ALD"), and ALJ's 40-2A-9(g), with the a f f i r m i n g the the court in judge " [ e ] i t h e r the circuit and dismiss Gaming, assessment law order appeal to Gateway Division administrative pursuant Gateway to Department entered the Law the ALJ to the against Administrative by by Court petition. I n M a r c h 2010, of Circuit with the Instead, Department 2110798 within t h e 30-day a p p e a l The period. Department s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d a motion to dismiss the a p p e a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t Gateway had f a i l e d of On May appeal entered and § with t h e ALD. an o r d e r allowing denying ALD. The notice of appeal The the Department's i . e . , to f i l e following Department of May order petitioned this notice appeal. 10, 2012, a l l o w i n g of appeal The incorrectly circuit with Department applied court. understanding court Gateway t h e ALD argues maintains of the statute with filed for a (1) t o v a c a t e days writ its to f i l e (2) t o d i s m i s s the concerning that circuit appeals the c i r c u i t of order its Gateway's court to the court's i s correct. "A w r i t o f mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , and i t w i l l b e ' i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; 2) a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d 4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court.' Ex p a r t e United S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 501 , 503 ( A l a . 3 a t h e ALD. court that dismiss of appeal with the 30 e x t r a and the statute Gateway to 11, 2012, Gateway the ALJ's mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e c i r c u i t motion court the requirements" of a notice d a y , o n May from a notice 10, 2012, t h e c i r c u i t G a t e w a y 30 d a y s t o " s a t i s f y 4 0-2A-9(g)(1)a., to f i l e 2110798 1993). A writ o f mandamus will issue only i n s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r r e l i e f i s u n a v a i l a b l e o r i s inadequate, a n d i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e for a p p e a l . E x p a r t e D r i l l P a r t s & S e r v . C o . , 590 So. 2 d 2 5 2 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Ex parte (Ala. Empire Fire & Marine I n s . C o . , 720 S o . 2 d 8 9 3 , 894 1998). "In d e t e r m i n i n g t h e meaning o f a s t a t u t e , t h i s Court l o o k s t o t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e words as w r i t t e n b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . A s we h a v e s a i d : "'"Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where p l a i n language i s used a c o u r t i s bound t o interpret t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f t h e language of t h e s t a t u t e i s u n a m b i g u o u s , t h e n t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e c l e a r l y expressed intent of the l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n e f f e c t . " ' " B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d v . N i e l s e n , 714 S o . 2 d 2 9 3 , 2 9 6 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o t i n g IMED C o r p . v . S y s t e m s Eng'g A s s o c s . Corp., 602 S o . 2 d 344 , 34 6 (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) ) ; s e e a l s o T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Comm'n v . D e p u t y S h e r i f f s ' Ass'n, 5 8 9 S o . 2 d 6 8 7 , 689 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; C o a s t a l S t a t e s Gas T r a n s m i s s i o n Co. v . A l a b a m a P u b . Serv. Comm'n, 524 S o . 2 d 3 5 7 , 360 ( A l a . 1 98 8 ) ; A l a b a m a Farm B u r e a u M u t . C a s . I n s . Co. v . C i t y o f H a r t s e l l e , 460 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 3 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ; Dumas B r o s . M f g . Co. v . S o u t h e r n G u a r . I n s . Co., 431 So. 2 d 5 3 4 , 5 3 6 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; Town o f L o x l e y v . R o s i n t o n W a t e r , Sewer, & F i r e P r o t e c t i o n A u t h . , I n c . , 376 So. 2 d 7 0 5 , 708 ( A l a . 1 97 9 ) . I t i s t r u e t h a t when l o o k i n g a t a s t a t u t e we m i g h t s o m e t i m e s t h i n k t h a t the r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e words a r e i n e f f i c i e n t o r unusual. However, i t i s o u r j o b t o s a y what t h e l a w i s , n o t t o s a y what i t s h o u l d b e . T h e r e f o r e , o n l y 4 2110798 i f t h e r e i s no r a t i o n a l way t o i n t e r p r e t t h e w o r d s as stated will we look beyond those words to determine l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . To a p p l y a d i f f e r e n t p o l i c y would turn this Court into a legislative b o d y , a n d d o i n g t h a t , o f c o u r s e , w o u l d be utterly inconsistent w i t h the d o c t r i n e of s e p a r a t i o n of powers. See E x p a r t e T.B., 698 So. 2d 1 2 7 , 130 (Ala. 1997)." DeKalb Cnty. 275-76 v. S u b u r b a n Gas, 40-2A-9(g)(1) establishes perfecting order Co. an appeal i n a tax-assessment 2A-9(g)(1), paragraph ALJ's the I n c . , 729 So. 2d 270, ( A l a . 1998). Section for LP Gas order circuit order. § case. circuit paragraph an ALJ's the 30 first from a, r e q u i r e s t h e p a r t y a p p e a l i n g f r o m a notice The court 40- court within further the requirements of § 40-2A-9(g)(1)a. establishes an A L J ' s to f i l e to various of appeal w i t h both days of Paragraph the b t h e ALD entry of of 40-2A-9(g)(1) § the r e q u i r e m e n t s when a t a x p a y e r a p p e a l s order: "b. I f the appeal to c i r c u i t c o u r t i s by a taxpayer from a final order involving a final assessment, the t a x p a y e r , at the time of f i l i n g the a p p e a l , s h a l l do one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : "1. Pay the amount stated in final order of the administrative judge, plus a p p l i c a b l e i n t e r e s t . "2. E x e c u t e a supersedeas [pursuant to c e r t a i n requirements] 5 and the law bond ALJ's from 2110798 "3. F i l e an irrevocable letter c r e d i t w i t h the c i r c u i t c o u r t [pursuant certain requirements] .... "4. File a pledge assignment of securities certain requirements] of to or collateral [pursuant to "5. Show t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of the clerk of the circuit court [that the taxpayer has a net worth less than a s p e c i f i e d amount]." Paragraph c of § when t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s 4 0-2A-9(g)(1) of paragraphs d i s c u s s e s the a or b are not procedure satisfied: "c.1. E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n s u b p a r a g r a p h 2., the c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l d i s m i s s any a p p e a l t h a t i s n o t t i m e l y f i l e d w i t h t h e [ALD] a n d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a s h e r e i n p r o v i d e d , o r , c o n c e r n i n g appeals from final a s s e s s m e n t s , i f t h e amount o f t h e a s s e s s m e n t u p h e l d by t h e f i n a l o r d e r of t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law j u d g e i s not t i m e l y p a i d i n f u l l , or a supersedeas bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or pledge or c o l l a t e r a l assignment of s e c u r i t i e s i s not timely f i l e d as h e r e i n r e q u i r e d . " 2 . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g s u b p a r a g r a p h 1., s h o u l d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e t a x p a y e r has not s a t i s f i e d the requirements of t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n , the c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l order that the taxpayer s a t i s f y s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t s . The t a x p a y e r may satisfy such requirements at any time within 30 days after s e r v i c e of the c o u r t o r d e r . No o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l be e n t e r e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r s e r v i c e o f t h e c o u r t o r d e r , a n d no o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l s h a l l t h e r e a f t e r be e n t e r e d i f s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n such 30-day p e r i o d . " (Emphasis added.) 6 2110798 In this case, requirement with § Gateway of paragraph t h e ALD within 30 40-2A-9(g)(1)a. requirements the circuit court, circuit of ALD, c, Gateway subparagraph 2 t o g i v e G a t e w a y an appeal with statute. The paragraph requirement appeal Department the is of e n t r y of the ALJ's order. partially a notice of appeal period. allowed The Gateway Department argues, c 30 days -- a requirement argues that b, that plain which 2 at appeal is circuit a notice circuit of the subparagraph time concerns i s not the to case the language of i s , the of to f i l e however, t h a t subparagraph to s a t i s f y security issue does taxpayer a d d i t i o n a l time to s a t i s f y a requirement 7 with days in this that c allows a taxpayer additional of o n l y paragraph the circuit That permits argues the 30 a notice issue paragraph by The Gateway days to f i l e did. supported meet "safe-harbor" provision additional ALD. a appeal filing the satisfy of the p r e s c r i b e d on to a notice d i d , however, paragraph which order the filing of the c o u r t g a v e G a t e w a y 30 court's of of failed the r e q u i r e m e n t s " of § 40-2A-9(g)(1)a. the whether 2 not a by obviously relying "satisfy court Gateway court within subparagraph with a by days of paragraph initially a for here. not 2 allow The a i n paragraph 2110798 a, w h i c h t h i s the case concerns. that c i r c u i t c o u r t must d i s m i s s Gateway's a p p e a l f o r f a i l u r e timely file To a notice o f a p p e a l t o t h e ALD determine which party s t a t u t e more c l o s e l y . that "[e]xcept court the Thus, the Department argues shall [ALD] as Subparagraph we must examine any appeal that i s not 2., the timely requiring dismissal qualifying phrase first added). in Therefore, subparagraph "except sentence 1 is subparagraph 2 the language limited of with § 40-2A- by as p r o v i d e d i n s u b p a r a g r a p h of the circuit filed and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d . " (emphasis a. 1 of paragraph c p r o v i d e s provided i n subparagraph dismiss 9(g)(1)c.1 The i s correct, under paragraph to the 2." paragraph c p r o v i d e s : " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g s u b p a r a g r a p h 1., s h o u l d t h e c i r c u i t court determine requirements that of this the taxpayer subdivision, order that the taxpayer s a t i s f y added.) to The term " t h i s subdivision subparagraph the i n § 40-2A-9(g), other satisfied circuit court c 8 shall (Emphasis 2 the i n which subdivision i s contained. things, the i n subparagraph t o t h e 2 0 0 7 amendment among not such requirements." subdivision" 2 of paragraph Amendment N o t e s amendment, (1) has "in (stating See § that subsection refers 40-2A-9, the (g), 2007 in 2110798 subdivision inserted added)). (emphasis (1) The the paragraphs the requirements concerning language, security this case, of a p p e a l be the the of b of appeal. filed w i t h the third that are and the subdivision, by i t s requirement i n paragraph (1) subdivision, appeal, Thus, 2 r e f e r e n c e s the requirement and a of that notice i n paragraph the second paragraph of for subparagraph in The filing contained designators " r e q u i r e m e n t s " of s u b d i v i s i o n the requirements c o n t a i n e d i n paragraph concerning a.-c. a that plain at issue the notice ALD. sentence of subparagraph 2 of c provide: "The t a x p a y e r may s a t i s f y s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t s [ , i . e . , the requirements of s u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) , ] a t any time w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r s e r v i c e o f t h e c o u r t o r d e r [ordering that the taxpayer satisfy the requirements]. No o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a l l be e n t e r e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r service of the court order, and no order of dismissal shall thereafter be entered i f such r e q u i r e m e n t i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n such 30-day p e r i o d . " Thus, by i t s plain terms, subparagraph upon o r d e r of the c i r c u i t c o u r t , requirements needed and upon b. Only paragraphs to p e r f e c t failure a and b w i t h i n 2 allows a 30 d a y s t o s a t i s f y an appeal to s a t i s f y under a l l the taxpayer, any of paragraphs requirements the a of 30 d a y s o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r 9 2110798 would the appeal jurisdiction. unfulfilled notice In t h i s of appeal with the Accordingly, statutory order, subject case, requirement following circuit be court for satisfied the Gateway t h e ALD lack of remaining on a period the order. circuit plain Gateway following a -- w e l l w i t h i n t h e 3 0 - d a y of provisions, dismissal f o r p e r f e c t i n g i t s a p p e a l -- f i l i n g entry based to of perfected the and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t reading entry of court's the applicable i t s appeal the circuit to the court's d i d n o t e r r by n o t d i s m i s s i n g the appeal. We recognize filing a notice entry of the "satisfied" that are one may ALJ's after decision that 30-day required t h e ALD within could period the requirement of ever has 30 d a y s o f t h e be technically expired. We note this 30-day p e r i o d . b Thus, f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f p a r a g r a p h c t o have any a p p l i c a t i o n , must r e a d requirements court's how i n b o t h p a r a g r a p h a and p a r a g r a p h t o be c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n words, question of appeal with the actions safe-harbor we that that outside the 30-day order provision the period allowing as a l l o w i n g original following the a party 30-day 10 "satisfy" period. the entry "requirements" to In of the t o be other circuit "satisfied" 2110798 essentially required In Acts replaces the actions should 2007, 2007 the ("the original have the occurred. legislature Act"), 30-day p e r i o d i n which passed which Act amended No. § 2007-504, 40-2A-9(1) among o t h e r t h i n g s , s u b p a r a g r a p h 2 o f p a r a g r a p h c. Ala. to add, Before the 2 0 0 7 a m e n d m e n t , t h e r e was no p r o v i s i o n i n t h e s t a t u t e a l l o w i n g a 30 taxpayer of an under an appeal the additional to the to f i l e entry the of circuit statute before taxpayer dismissal an order the appeal to court the appeal ALJ's of days satisfy under 2007 Revenue In arguing Gateway's with the the v. Morton, that appeal ALD w i t h t h e ALD for failure Department statute by substantially 2d the days changed w i t h i n 30 See, e.g., of should to the on file entry cases amendment. statute 11 the in have the regarding the circuit 2004). dismissed appeal ALJ's order, controlled of the of However, 2 a Alabama Dep't a notice of by days of ( A l a . C i v . App. subparagraph the invoke court relies 2007 adding Thus, failure to 940 for i t s failing primarily before amendment, So. circuit w i t h i n 30 § 40-2A-9(g). would have p r o p e r l y r e s u l t e d 892 the requirements amendment, court's subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . of the by the 2007 paragraph when an the c, appeal 2110798 could be decided dismissed under controlling The on In the under the the order within the favor upholding 30 court. the failure The this of following to a the the a The appeal from an like a n o t i c e of appeal w i t h order. Department On appeal of due judgment appealed to the appeal instructed the the appeal to t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t had notice and amendment. court a final of that taxpayer, in this lacked taxpayer's with t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t was the 2008), 2007 circuit assessment. the taxpayer's file not ( A l a . C i v . App. court, that court entered and are 128 3d tax amendment case, Alabama Department appealed a 2007 cases us. case, d i d not f i l e over to dismissed the Thus, one statute taxpayer, Consequently, vacate before This court concluded jurisdiction jurisdiction. d a y s o f t h e e n t r y o f an A L J ' s circuit of So. taxpayer Gateway i n t h i s to of issue before 12 Harris, ALD statute Harris, decided ALJ's lack Department does c i t e Revenue v. was the for void. circuit the ALD. Thus, court we to i t s judgment. circuit case, never paragraph court in Harris, entered c allowing an the unlike the order pursuant taxpayer 12 30 circuit to extra court i n subparagraph 2 days a to file 2110798 notice of unlike appeal the with circuit judgment d e s p i t e for perfecting appear that was issue an does not support the the § 40-2A-9 7"), a part taxpayers a ALD with order instead dismiss circuit of the court's 9"), appeals u n d e r s e c t i o n 7, both Department the than the circuit within 30 court days Thus, Harris circuit court lacked order; that of 13 the other When the in this factors also legislature amended § 40-2A-7 Section case, ("section 40-2A-7(b)(5) gives a tax assessment d i r e c t l y to a c i r c u i t c case. appealing taxpayer not paragraph applicable section in this same S t a t u t e . directly i t does appeal. order. i t also rather the final prerequisite statutory provisions court's amending the court this 2 of a u n d e r p a r a g r a p h c and the o p t i o n of a p p e a l i n g circuit taxpayer an circuit of the in in Harris, entered importantly, to conclude t h a t the ("section court subparagraph Harris, unlike language passed the A c t , case, Most a p p l i c a t i o n of must supports this in circuit absence of a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l to enter plain The appeal. r e q u i r e us The case the in court ALD. court the the jurisdiction circuit the to the court and ALD. If bypasses must f i l e a n o t i c e of and the secretary the assessment. a the appeal of § to the 40-2A- 2110798 7(b)(5)b.1. To p e r f e c t 7, section as under the 9, a p p e a l , the must satisfy of Section 7, like circuit court satisfy c e r t a i n unmet r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r p e r f e c t i n g to allow 40-2A-7(b)(5)c.2. taxpayer b.2, 9, the has "[S]hould the satisfied [i.e., the requirements satisfy circuit such safe-harbor provision taxpayer to has 9, file failed appealed "[W]e in section a to 7, directing does order 7, not so a notice within 30 that for the days the Thus, the the safe-harbor appeal of the taxpayer taxpayer of 9, subparagraph added). unlike allow required do that to safe-harbor security (emphasis section of the appeal. Section determine concerning days the unlike requirements Id. options a d d i t i o n a l 30 court shall requirements." in opportunity the court provision an section 40-2A-7(b)(5)b.2. provision section circuit not the § a p p l i c a t i o n of t h a t 30-day has appeal,] a taxpayer However, l i m i t s the provision: the section appeal. various security specifically the one concerning § for taxpayer under the another i f the entry of decision. presume t h a t provisions within meaning." Ex a difference similar parte statutes, Smiths Water 14 & i n wording, e s p e c i a l l y i n reflects Sewer a difference Auth., 982 So. in 2d 2110798 484, 488 (Ala. 2007). "[This Court is not] permitted arbitrarily to disregard the marked differences in terminology i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e s e d i s t i n c t t y p e s o f amendments. Indeed, where t h e r e i s a ' m a t e r i a l a l t e r a t i o n i n the l a n g u a g e u s e d i n t h e d i f f e r e n t c l a u s e s , i t i s t o be i n f e r r e d ' t h a t the a l t e r a t i o n s were not inadvertent. L e h m a n , D u r r & Co. v . R o b i n s o n , 59 A l a . 2 1 9 , 235 (18 7 7 ) . " House v. In Cullman this case, harbor p r o v i s i o n provision the the that safe-harbor 593 So. 7 to 9, manner safe-harbor as the easily done part of same a m e n d a t o r y we again provision differences intend to only the of section note limit that security intended to 9 in the same section 7, i t could each provision a the safe-harbor to the ALD, the to situation timely in this file section a notice case. 15 of 9 differences is s e c t i o n s f u r t h e r undermines the Department's argument t h a t in The both two provision act. of to i n the failure the so; the legislature provision safe- safe-harbor Those not the the the provision have limit concern Had 1992). drafted i t drafted did to safe-harbor (Ala. appeal. legislature provisions the 75 broadly but on r e q u i r e m e n t s of a tax appeal. limit 69, specifically requirements the 2d legislature in section in section security indicate Cnty., does appeal not with apply the 2110798 The Department argues that the l e g i s l a t u r e paragraph notice of paragraph of of the Act indicates intended f o r the s a f e - h a r b o r p r o v i s i o n c of § 4 0-2A-9(g)(1) requirements the that the t i t l e appeal b, to apply o n l y to the not the i n paragraph requirements a. The title of security concerning of the Act states: "To amend S e c t i o n s 4 0 - 2 A - 7 a n d 4 0 - 2 A - 9 , C o d e o f A l a b a m a 1975, r e l a t i n g t o t h e f i l i n g o f s u p e r s e d e a s bonds by t a x p a y e r s , t o l o w e r t h e s u p e r s e d e a s bond requirement t o 125 p e r c e n t o f t h e a m o u n t o f t h e final assessment or judgment, to provide alternatives to f i l i n g the supersedeas bond, to r a i s e t h e m o n e t a r y l i m i t f o r t a x p a y e r s who a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o f i l e a s u p e r s e d e a s bond, and t o p r o v i d e that a taxpayer who fails to satisfy the requirements would have 30 days to cure the deficiency." The Department c o r r e c t l y notes that the t i t l e of the Act does not r e f e r e n c e the n o t i c e - o f - a p p e a l r e q u i r e m e n t s found i n paragraph title an a c t may court a a. H o w e v e r , we serve as should turn piece of conclusion that, a i d to although "[t]he statutory construction," to the title "'to determine legislation only i f from a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d the s t a t u t e . ' " Assistance an note we can Alabama Dep't of E n v t l . Found., Inc., 973 So. 16 2d 379 no of rational of the terms Mgmt. v . 369, this the meaning draw application to Legal of Envtl. (Ala. Civ. App. 2110798 2007) The ( q u o t i n g DeKalb Cnty. LP Gas U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t Co., 729 So. 2d at 277). has e x p l a i n e d : "[The] h e a d i n g i s but a s h o r t - h a n d r e f e r e n c e t o the g e n e r a l s u b j e c t m a t t e r i n v o l v e d . ... [ H ] e a d i n g s a n d titles a r e n o t meant t o t a k e t h e p l a c e o f the detailed provisions of the text. Nor are they n e c e s s a r i l y d e s i g n e d t o be a r e f e r e n c e g u i d e o r a s y n o p s i s . ... F o r i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p u r p o s e s , t h e y a r e o f u s e o n l y when t h e y s h e d l i g h t on some a m b i g u o u s word or p h r a s e . They a r e b u t t o o l s a v a i l a b l e f o r the r e s o l u t i o n of a doubt. But t h e y c a n n o t undo o r l i m i t t h a t w h i c h t h e t e x t makes p l a i n . " Brotherhood U.S. 519, In harbor of 528-29 this provision Trainmen i n paragraph there determine the Mgmt. a n d Brotherhood added, the list to revision (n) & Ohio of title the and no need the 2007 of Department to intent. R.R., 3 31 safe- the provision a and paragraph consult Alabama of the the Dep't title of to Envtl. Trainmen. of the two See that of paragraph amendments (o). application c indicates o f R.R. among o t h e r t h i n g s , subsections Notes is legislature's Moreover, Baltimore a straightforward to the requirements Therefore, exhaustive v. (1947). case, applies both b. R.R. new Act to does the not contain statute. subsections to s e c t i o n A l a . Code § 4 0 - 2 A - 9 , amendment. Subsection regulations, 17 The and (n) an Act 9, Amendment concerns the subsection (o) 2110798 concerns pending the of the supersedeas-bond amount enacted. also a p p e a l s when t h e A c t was subsections Notes reduction (d) a n d (e) t o s e c t i o n 7, The t o t h e 2 0 0 7 a m e n d m e n t ; t h o s e s u b s e c t i o n s a r e t h e same a s (n) a n d of s u b s e c t i o n s i s not r e c o u n t e d t h o s e new T h u s , e v e n i f we (o) i n s e c t i o n omission of language requirements R.R. unusual The framers circuit days Accordingly, we PETITION Thompson, concur. However, the 331 U.S. to i n the A c t ' s place l i t t l e title. in considering significance court at of appeal. 528 "fail[] of that to substance the on the r e l a t i n g the s a f e - h a r b o r p r o v i s i o n to the f o r a heading additional would concerning notices Trainmen, the 9. were t o examine the t i t l e m e a n i n g o f t h e A c t , we which added see § 4 0 - 2 A - 7 , Amendment subsections of Act for did file a not (stating to r e f e r section wrote err notice deny the p e t i t i o n See in of Brotherhood that i t is to a l l the into not matters the text"). allowing Gateway appeal for a writ with of the 30 ALD. mandamus. DENIED. P.J., and Pittman, 18 Thomas, and Moore, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.