Collegians For a Constructive Tomorrow, Petitioner
v.
Stone, et al., Respondents
2005 ASM SJ 14
ON PETITION FOR APPEAL
Cite As: 2006 SJ Ord. 2
Before Fox, CJ, Hodgson, VCJ, Brusda, Leonard, Romano, and Tyack, S.JJ.
JUSTICE BRUSDA delivers the Order of the Court.
SHANNON BRUSDA, Student Justice.1. Petitioner Lorenzo Edwards filed an appeal with regard to the decision in CFACT v. Stone et al, 2005 ASM SJ 14, on a number of grounds. The Court dismissed his appeal on all grounds except one. See Edwards Appeal (Denied), 2006 SJ Ord. 1. The remaining ground was that the Court failed to follow the timelines of the ASM By-Laws. An informal evidentiary hearing was ordered to determine whether CFACT filed their complaint within the statute of limitations, which states “the affected RSO must file an appeal to a Committee within five school days of the notice of the adverse decision.” ASM By-Law §5.06(C)(II)(1) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Student Judiciary may not consider any decision filed after this deadline.ASM By-Law §5.06(C)(II)(2).TRC v. SSFC (II), 2004 ASM SJ 17.
2. The evidentiary hearing was held on January 17, 2006 in order to determine when CFACT was notified. As stated in the By-Laws, a party has “notice” of a decision when it receives an e-mail containing the text of the decision or a link to the text of a decision.ASM By-Law §5.06(B)(I)(5)(a).
3. CFACT filed a complaint against Rep. Edwards at 4:33PM on December 1, 2005. At the hearing, CFACT presented evidence that showed CFACT was notified via e-mail at 4:48PM on November 22, 2005. Because the deadline tolls during Thanksgiving recess, the Court determined that CFACT filed the complaint against Rep. Edwards within the five school day deadline.ASM By-Law §5.04(IV)(B)(I). In determining this, the Court noted that it has been standard practice for the Court not to count the official day of notification in the five day requirement for the statue of limitations. This is because the party may not be notified until late in the day, and to set times of the day to determine when notification is or is not acceptable becomes arbitrary. Twelve minutes cannot equate to one day, as was the case here.
Wherefore, for the reasons stated above:
IT IS ORDERED that Representative Edwards’ Petition for Appeal regarding the issue of timeline limitations is DENIED.
By the Student Judiciary,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Nicholas J. Fox, Chief Justice
Amber Hodgson, Vice-Chief Justice
Shannon Brusda, Associate Justice
Timothy Leonard, Associate Justice
Nathaniel Romano, Associate Justice
Joshua Tyack, Associate Justice
Published: 22 January 2006, 4.45PM
Attest: /s/ NJF