TE`O
v.
DISTRICT
COURT OF
High Court of
Appellate Division
[1] There is no right to
appeal judgment of contempt. However, a
contempt judgment may be contested by filing a writ of certiorari.
[2] Certiorari is a
discretionary form of review, not one of right.
[3] A party should file a
writ seeking extraordinary relief, such as a writ for certiorari, in a timely
fashion. If the law does not specify the
time limit for filing the particular writ, the filing should occur within a
reasonable time.
[4] Review under
certiorari is limited to whether a judicial body acted within the scope of its
authority, and does not address errors of law or fact committed by an inferior
tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction.
[5] Where rules did not
provide time limit for filing a writ of certiorari to the High Court, the
analogous rule for review of an agency’s decision under the Administrative
Procedures Act (30 days) would be used due to the similarities between the
review of an agency’s decision under the APA and the High Court’s review of a
District Court’s judgment of contempt.
Before
KRUSE, Chief Justice, RICHMOND, Associate Justice, LOGOAI, Associate Judge, and
ATIULAGI, Associate Judge.
Counsel: For Petitioner,
For Respondent,
ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OR QUASH ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
On
[1-2]
Under H.C.R. 119, no right to appeal a contempt judgment exists. Although certiorari is not a substitute for
appeal, In re Johnson’s Adoption, 110 S.E. 2d 377, 379 (
[3] A
writ of certiorari is available for extraordinary relief, and, as such, the
petitioner should file a writ in a timely fashion, commensurate with the degree
of relief requested. When a statute does
not prescribe the time within which the right to review must be exercised, such
right must be exercised within a reasonable time. State v. Board of
Trustees of Wisconsin Retirement Fund, 140 N.W.2d 301, 303 (
This court has not directly addressed the issue of when
a writ of certiorari to review a contempt judgment must be filed. Te`o failed to
offer any analysis on when an appropriate deadline should be set. Rather, Te`o
asserts that the time for filing the writ of petition was “reasonable and not
dilatory” since no statute or rule sets out time limits on when a writ must be
filed. The District Court, on the other
hand, proffers that the time limit should be set at 10 days, equating the time
period by analogy with the time period for filing an appeal. [2ASR3d43]
As an initial matter, we acknowledge that no express
time limit exists for filing a petition for writ of mandamus or other
extraordinary writs in the rules. H.C.R. 119; F.R.A.P. 21; 9
Although laches is applied in
state courts, the statutory period for filing an appeal may also be employed to
determine the time period. Gibson v. Pizzino, 266 S.E.2d 122,
124 (W.Va. Ct. App. 1980); Board of Trustees, 140 N.W.2d at 303.
Where the case arises in the courts,
or in judicial proceedings, where the direct notice of the pendency
thereof to the parties is jurisdictional, or where the decision of a nonjudicial body is judicial in nature, certiorari must be
brought within the time allowable for an appeal as prescribed by statute or
court rule. If more than one appeal
period is analogous, then the longer appeal period should be applied.
City of Bothell,
723 P.2d at 551 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
For federal courts, the statutory time period for appeals is not controlling
but is persuasive. Olds, 426 F.2d at 566.
[4]
Because of the court’s interest in the finality of judgments, Reid v. Tavete, 23 A.S.R.2d 101, 104 (Land & Titles Div.
1993), a time limit, in this instance, is necessary, regardless of whether
there has been a material change in Te`o’s
status. Reasoning by analogy, the time
period for reviewing an administrative hearing under the Administrative
Procedures Act (“APA”) is persuasive here.
Both review under certiorari and review of an administrative hearing are
limited to whether a judicial body acted within the scope of its
authority. Review under certiorari does
not correct errors of law or fact committed by an inferior tribunal within the
limits of its jurisdiction.
Review of an administrative hearing is also
limited. Administrative review is
limited to whether a reasoning mind could reasonably reach the same factual
conclusions as did the agency. Continental Insurance Co. v. [2ASR3d44]
Workmen’s Compensation Commission of American Samoa, 8 A.S.R.2d 152, 155 (Appellate Div. 1988) (citation omitted). Review of an agency decision does not include
“judicial fact-finding or a substitution of judicial judgment for agency
judgment.”
[5]
Although the scope of review for agency decisions is not the same as review
under a writ of certiorari, the similarities persuade us to use the APA
statutory time limit for review. Under
the APA, judicial review of an agency decision must be instituted within 30
days after the issuance of the decision.
A.S.A.C. § 4.1041; see also In re Westerlund v. Scanlan, 4
A.S.R. 998, 1003 (Appellate Div. 1975) (judicial review of a worker’s
compensation award must be instituted within 30 days of the date of filing of
the award).
By his own admission, Te`o
acknowledges that he filed his petition in the Trial Division 82 days after being
convicted of contempt, 49 days after the denial of the motion for rehearing or
reconsideration, and 37 days after the receipt of the June 3 hearing
transcript. The relevant time period
here is the number of days Te`o filed his petition
after the denial of the motion for rehearing or reconsideration. Te`o actually filed
his petition 50 days after that denial, exceeding by 20 days the reasonable
time limitation now set by this court.
Therefore, the District Court’s motion to dismiss or quash the alternative
writ of certiorari is granted.
It is so Ordered.
**********