holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over a party not specified in the notice of appeal as required by Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(A); specifically, appellant’s use of "et al.” in the notice of appeal was insufficient to notify defendant or the court that intervenor-plaintiff, one of sixteen intervenors, was an appellant, or to allow them to determine whether he was bound by the adverse judgment
How later courts described this case
- holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction over a party not specified in the notice of appeal as required by Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)(A); specifically, appellant’s use of "et al.” in the notice of appeal was insufficient to notify defendant or the court that intervenor-plaintiff, one of sixteen intervenors, was an appellant, or to allow them to determine whether he was bound by the adverse judgment
- stating that if litigant files papers in fashion that is technically at variance with letter of procedural rule, court may nonetheless find that litigant has complied with rule if litigant’s action is functional equivalent of what rule requires, but holding that FRAP Rule 3(c) requirement to specify party or parties taking appeal was not satisfied
- holding that a court “may not waive the jurisdictional requirements of Rules 3 and 4, even for ‘good cause shown’ under Rule 2, if it finds that they have not been met” and noting that any “harshness” in the application of these Rules “is imposed by the legislature and not by the judicial process”
- stating that F.R.A.P. 3, which is substantially similar to V.R.A.P. 3, requires “some designation that gives fair notice of the specific individual or entity seeking to appeal” and concluding that the use of the phrase “et al.” fails to provide such notice to potential opponents and to the court
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in Retail Flooring Dealers of America, Inc. v. Beaulieu of America, LLC — not on the Supreme Court's list
487 U.S. 312 (1988), superseded by statute as recognized in Retail Flooring Dealers of America, Inc. v. Beaulieu of America, LLC, 339 F.3d 1146, 1148
Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 14, 20032 citing opinionsby statuteunconfirmed confidenceRead itQuestioned by Calma v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 11 (1996)
If Torres is no longer good law as to its holding that the content requirements of FRAP Rule 3(c) are jurisdictional, then this Court could hold that the content requirements of Court Rule 3(c) could be waived by the Court under Court Rule 2.
Distinguished
Distinguished by In Re Cascade Roads, Inc., Debtor. United States of America v. Peter H. Arkison, Trustee, 34 F.3d 756 (1994)
487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988), is inapposite because it involved the failure to designate certain
Distinguished by Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Case (In re Case), 937 F.2d 1014 (1991)
We conclude that the specificity requirement set out in Torres is inapplicable to a notice of appeal from a bankruptcy court judgment or order.
Distinguished by Minority Employees of the Tennessee Department of Employment Security, Inc. v. State of Tennessee, Department of Employment Security, 901 F.2d 1327 (1990)
In Ford v. Nicks, supra, for example, a panel of this court distinguished Torres and accepted a notice containing “et al.” The court was persuaded that the use of the definite article in “the defendants” in the body of the notice of appeal sufficiently designated the appealing parties, even though the notice of appeal was captioned, in relevant part, “Chancellor Roy S. Nicks, et al. Defendants.” 866 F.2d at 869.
Distinguished by James William Pope v. Mississippi Real Estate Commission, 872 F.2d 127 (1989)
Therefore, in the limited context of this two party action, we distinguish Torres.
The opinion
Justice Scalia,
concurring in the judgment;
I agree with the judgment of the Court, but I db not believe that the principles set forth in its opinion produce it. If it is the fact that the requirements of the rulés of procedure should be “liberally construed,” that “‘mere .technicalities’ should not stand in the way of consideration of a case on its merits,” and that a rule is complied with if “the litigant’s action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires,” ante, at 316, it would seem to me that a caption listing the first party to the case and then adding “et al.” is enough to suggest that all parties are taking the appeal; arid that the later omission of one of the parties in listing the appellants can, “liberally viewed,” be deemed to create no more than an *319 ambiguity which does not destroy the effect of putting the ap-pellee on notice.
The principle that “mere technicalities” should not stand in the way of deciding a case on the merits is more a prescription for ignoring the Federal Rules than a useful guide to their construction and application. By definition all rules of procedure are technicalities; sanction for failure to comply with them always prevents the court from deciding where justice lies in the particular case, on the theory that securing a fair and orderly process enables more justice to be done in the totality of cases. It seems to me, moreover, that we should seek to interpret the rules neither liberally nor stingily, but only, as best we can, according to their apparent intent. Where that intent is to provide leeway, a permissive construction is the right one; where it is to be strict, a permissive construction is wrong. Thus, the very first of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not prescribe that they are to be “liberally construed,” but rather that they are to be “construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 1.
The Appellate Rule at issue here requires the appellant to “specify the party or parties taking the appeal,” Fed. Rule App. Proc. 3(c), which suggests to me more than just a residual “et al.” Moreover, that it was thought necessary to specify that “informality of form or title” would not entail dismissal, ibid., suggests that a strict application was generally contemplated. I concur in today’s judgment, therefore, for essentially the same reasons that I dissented from the judgment in Houston v. Lack, ante, p. 266, which the Court appropriately cites to support its reasoning in the present case, but which in my view stands in stark contrast to its conclusion.