Opinion ID: 2551099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sengupta's Attempt To Appeal Judge Hodges's Decision

Text: On August 29, 1996, Groseclose wrote Sengupta a letter informing him of Judge Hodges's decision. Groseclose informed Sengupta that [a]ny appeal must be filed by September 19, 1996 and cautioned, I hazard a preliminary assessment that it is unlikely the Alaska Supreme Court will conclude differently from the Superior Court. To do so, the Alaska Supreme Court, through independent review, would have to conclude that an error of law occurred. Groseclose again informed Sengupta that his right of appeal would expire on September 19, or thirty days from the issuance of the superior court's decision. On September 2, 1996, Sengupta wrote Groseclose and Wickwire and informed them that he wished to appeal Judge Hodges's decision. Sengupta enclosed a list of conclusions made by the superior court that he believed to be erroneous. On September 12, 1996, Wickwire wrote a letter to Sengupta indicating that he would handle the appeal. In the letter, Wickwire limited the scope of his representation to a single issue: This confirms our phone conversation of September 12, 1996 regarding my agreement to pursue your appeal. I agree to handle the appeal and briefing of Judge Hodges' decision for the purpose of raising just one issue: that Judge Hodges erred in concluding that you had to accept the administrative hearing before Julian Rice, instead of an administrative determination by the tenured faculty of your unit, as you had requested. Wickwire filed a notice of appeal with this court on November 1, 1996, forty-three days after the deadline. The appeal challenged the superior court's conclusion that Sengupta did not have a right to a hearing before his tenured colleagues and was required to accept a hearing before a hearing officer. On November 29, 1996, we issued an order dismissing Sengupta's appeal because it was untimely.