# Smith v. Barry > Supreme Court of the United States · January 14, 1992 · 502 U.S. 244 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432442 ## Case - **Full name:** SMITH v. BARRY Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** January 14, 1992 - **Citations:** 502 U.S. 244; 112 S. Ct. 678; 116 L. Ed. 2d 678; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 372 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia - **Judges:** Blackmun, Connor, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Stevens, White - **Cited by:** 916 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432442 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that a document intended to serve as an appellate brief may constitute the “functional equivalent” of a notice of appeal sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 3, because the purpose of Rule 3's requirements "is to ensure that the filing provides suff… - stating that "the notice afforded by a document ... determines the document's sufficiency as a notice of appeal" and stating that the rules do not preclude an appellate court from treating a filing, styled as a brief, as a notice of appeal if the filing is timely and conveys t… - 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 … - explaining that Rule 62.1 adopts the "practice most courts follow when a party makes a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate a judgment that is pending on appeal” that "after an appeal has been docketed and while it remains pending, the district court cannot grant a Rule 60(b) motion wi… - holding that submissions to the court may be construed as the "functional equivalent” of a formal notice of appeal as long as they satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and afford parties to the case adequate notice of the appeal ## Opinion text Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment. I agree with the judgment because Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) provides that “[a]n appeal shall not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal.” I do not rely on the theory that petitioner’s brief was the “ ‘functional equivalent’ ” of a notice of appeal under a “liberal construction” of Rule 3. Ante, at 248. “[W]e should seek to interpret the rules neither liberally nor stingily, but only, as best we can, according to their apparent intent.” Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312, 319 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9432442. Public record. Not legal advice.