STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
|Court of Appeals||Gilbert, J. |
Concurring specially, Page, J.
Lyn M. Ducloux, petitioner,
Empire Executive Coaches, Inc.,
Commissioner of Economic Security,
|Filed: November 30, 2000 |
Office of Appellate Courts
S Y L L A B U S
In order for the court of appeals to have jurisdiction over a reemployment benefits appeal, the petitioner must serve the Commissioner of Economic Security and other involved parties with the petition for writ of certiorari within 30 days of the mailing of the notice of the Commissioner's decision as required by Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a) (Supp. 1999).
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
O P I N I O N
Petitioner, Lyn M. Ducloux, sought review by the court of appeals of the Commissioner of Economic Security's (Commissioner) decision to deny her reemployment insurance benefits. The court of appeals dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Ducloux failed to timely serve the Commissioner and other parties involved with the petition for the writ of certiorari as required by Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a) (Supp. 1999). Ducloux now seeks review of the court of appeals' decision arguing that timely service of a conformed writ of certiorari should satisfy the statutory requirement.
The issues presented are identical to those decided today in Harms v. Oak Meadows, _____ N.W.2d _____ (Minn. 2000). Based on our decision in Harms, we affirm the court of appeals' decision to discharge the writ of certiorari and dismiss Ducloux's appeal.
S P E C I A L C O N C U R R E N C E
PAGE, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the result with reluctance. I write separately to note that, in addition to elevating form over substance, see Harms v. Oak Meadows, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Minn. 2000) (Anderson, Paul H., J., concurring specially), it is counterintuitive that service of the petition for a writ of certiorari triggers review while service of a copy of the writ itself does not.