*1 Professor Pierce further indicates that

the instances in ASSOCIATION, UTAH CHIROPRACTIC produce methods may an unreasonable or INC., Appellant, Plaintiff and apt unconstitutional result are to be rare. He warns also that:

“departures EQUITABLE from the basic formula LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIE should be except avoided where reason- TY theOF UNITED STATES Des requires. Nonetheless, ableness some Association, eret Mutual Benefit De alternative method must be available Respondents. fendants and to handle the constitutional problem as No. 15345. cases, well as the unusual because no statutory pattern could ever resolve Supreme Court of Utah. satisfactorily problems for the mul- taxpayers titude of with individual 4,May business characteristics.” We hold that the party seeking to

invoke provisions the relief of the act must

prove that under the apportionment provi

sions of the act an unreasonable result will

occur, as, imposed gross the taxes are

ly disproportionate to the taxpayer’s busi state, activity

ness in this or extraterritorial

income being taxed. We believe such an

interpretation will general effectuate the

purpose of the act to make the law of the uniform,

enacting 59-13-96, states Section income,

and to assure that 100 percent of less,

more or no will be taxed.

The facts of the instant clearly case

establish an unusual situation. Deseret was

exempt, law, under imposition federal tax,

of a net income or a tax measured income,

net in those states where it solicited circumstances,

business. Under such

income from such solicitation is attributable plaintiff’s activity business in this state.

The apportionment provisions of the act did fairly represent Deseret’s local business

activity. employed proper

The Commission meth- equitable

od to reach an allocation and

portionment plaintiff’s income. purpose

method was accord with the Act. Uniform WIL-

KINS and *2 Law,

Equality 31-27-24, by section the de- fendants, Equitable Life Assurance So- ciety of the United and Deseret States Mu- tual Benefit Hearings Association. were 22, scheduled and held December 21 and 1976, but sign the Commissioner did not his findings order, rejected and plain- discrimination, tiff’s claims of until 25, 1977. That same the Commissioner mailed the plaintiff’s attorneys, order to who received it on April Desiring review of the issues the district plaintiff appealed to the Lake County Salt 9, pursuant District Court to section 31-4— 27, filing petition its there on May Defendants moved the court to dismiss appeal, asserting that under rules and 73 of the Utah Rules of Civil Proce- dure, plaintiff failed to file its within one month and that the district Berman, Strachan, Daniel L. Gordon Pa- jurisdiction. court therefore had no With Christensen, tricia W. Giauque, Berman & this agreed, assertion district court and City, Salt Lake for plaintiff appellant. and entered an order July dated dis- Hansen, Gen., Robert B. Atty. William G. missing the appeal. Gibbs, Sp. Gen., Atty. Asst. F. Burton How-

ard, Dyer, Robert M. Westerby, David A. Sections 31-4-9 31-4-11 Kirton, McConkie, Boyer Boyle, & Salt explain the manner in which an Lake City, for respondents. defendants and from the Insurance Commissioner’s decision is taken. Omitted from these sections is a

MAUGHAN, Justice: limit on the time comply one can take to appeal process. agree We Plaintiff, Chiropractic Association, Utah the district court Rulés of Civil Inc., appeals from an order of the district supplement pro Procedure the statute and court dismissing plaintiff’s appeal from a vide a one month limit. Rule adopted decision of the Insurance Commissioner. 20, January this court on provides: The district court plaintiff ruled that since These petition practice failed to file rules shall its for review within procedure one month decision, appealing from or ob- Commissioner’s order, taining any the court a review of jurisdiction was without to enter- appeal. tain action of an administrative sole board or is, agency, except this court specific to what extent insofar as the do the Utah Rules statutory procedure of Civil Procedure govern the connection with timeli- ness of from the is in Insurance review conflict or Commis- sioner’s decisions inconsistent with to the District these rules. Court of reverse, Salt Lake County? We hold Although the Insurance specifically Code plaintiff petition filed its for review within procedures governing appeals outlines time allowed the rules. Costs to the Insurance Commissioner’s plaintiff. All statutory references are to there nothing which is inconsist- therein Annotated, Utah Code ent or in application conflict with the plaintiff

On requested the Rules of Civil Procedure which Commissioner of Insurance to investigate a limit appeal. on the time to In National alleged violations of Advertising Utah’s Insurance Road Co. Utah State Com- mission,1 petition we which to file its in the district ap- stated limit on peals in the Rules of Procedure filing May Civil By court. Commission,' plied to a review of the Road timely brought its although the Commission had formulated 81(d)

its own rule on timeliness. WILKINS and *3 makes it clear the one month time limit for appeals appeals applies in Rule 73 to from the Insurance Commissioner’s ELLETT, by separate opin- dissents statutory the scheme fails to since ion. for limit. (dissenting): Justice Chief parties disagree part, The on which if any, Rule 73 to this situation. shall agree- I wish to state reasons for (a) through (g) appeals deal with Sections stat- ing prevailing opinion. Our the Supreme to the Court from district 1 to requires hearing commissioner ute (h) (m) while sections discuss give copy and to a thereof to make an order city to the district court from the or for provides next section parties. all The difficulty with these justice court. The sec- appeal an to the district court. taking specifically applies tions is that neither to hearing com- only thing appeal an from the Insurance Commission- give copy to do is to a required missioner is er, “entry” who makes no of his decision in gives When he a parties. of the to all judgment or docket. register a of actions is then final person a the matter copy to helpful It is to look at section 31-2-10 of copy must person receiving the Code, that an the Insurance which states provided is therefrom the same as appeal order of notice of Insurance Commis- 73(a), for in Rule U.R.C.P.2 “by delivery to the given sioner should be notified, by mail- or person to be ordered in the 6(e), upon relied Rule U.R.C.P. registered with ing postage prepaid it case. bearing on this opinion main has requested . . . .” receipt return to act requirement party for a There is no this, 6(e) with we note Rule connection receipt copy of a of the order. prior to the Procedure: the Rules of Civil by by hand or given order is Whether the right has the or is party Whenever receipt of the immaterial. It is the mail is to do some act or take some required finality of the which constitutes the copy prescribed period within a af- proceedings that date and it is from proceedings; paper ter the service of a notice or should be measured. appeal the time for an upon paper him and the notice or is appellant re- In the instant matter mail, upon by days him 3 shall be served appeal April on 26. ceived the notice period. added to the with the district court then had to be filed 6(e) 81(d), Rule Pursuant to Rule It was not within one month thereafter. applies to an order of the Insurance Com anything else required appeal to or do party missioner when it is mailed to when the order was made or the date when ordered, “prescribed as in this case. The be days three Therefore the it was mailed. the date the period” here is one month from 6(e), is not Rule U.R.C.P. extra time under Commissioner, mailed order was is what is only question involved. The judgment in a “entry” since there is no “within one month.” meant begin docket which could correct law clearly stated the Court Our Therefore, one as Estate3 Lynch’s In re in the case of days from the date the month and three mailed, within follows: order was (1971). U.R.C.P. P.2d 1.26 Utah 2d 383 123 Utah 31-4-9. 1. U.C.A. Sec.

One is per month a calendar month not a This was a curiam and has days, lunar month of 28 nor it never It is necessar- been overruled. was followed ily days. Such a at Anderson v. Anderson4 wherein an month commences judgment was taken on March from a of the month February This held: “It entered Court which it starts and ends is clear taken thus that this the same time, jurisdic- that the failure to do so is next month. Thus a month which starts tional noticeable the court sua of the first of a sponte. The dismissed with costs calendar month would end respondent.” the last and not at the last first In the instant matter the re- appellant If the month in com- ceived order on 26. It filed the *4 day menced on a day other than the first appeal on May following. By excluding month, of such at beginning such as received, day was month, of day the 23rd it would calculating the time for time expiration at the day of 22nd would May commence on 27th. On the next month expiration and not 26th the expired, month would have day May 23rd 27th be the first which would month. be with- would be the second That would not beginning of another one month. present month. In case we exclude from our calculation the of the act or timely designated event after which filed and should have been dismissed. run, begins of time which is November I affirm the trial would which motion was respondent. court and award costs overruled, and counting from the start month; the 23rd of that from that time one month would the 22nd of Decem-

ber, commenced, just before the 23rd marked the of another

4. 3 Utah 2d