finding 1 allegations “that the alleged conspirators have committed acts that ‘are unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement’” sufficient to 2 support an inference that a conspiracy was formed
How later courts described this case
- finding 1 allegations “that the alleged conspirators have committed acts that ‘are unlikely to have been undertaken without an agreement’” sufficient to 2 support an inference that a conspiracy was formed
- failure to file notice of cross-appeal is not a jurisdictional bar; an appellate court has authority to adjudicate the entire appeal before it and may waive the requirement of a notice of cross-appeal
- treating the cross-appeal requirement as non-jurisdictional
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Reinhardt’s opinion. I write separately only to express my understanding that it holds that the cross-appeal is inextricably linked to the main appeal because the principal issue in the main appeal is whether the court’s immunity ruling is inconsistent with the order that is the subject of the cross appeal. The two rulings should be reviewed together. There is no need to speculate about what the relationship between the issues might be after they are decided.