Bowles v. Russell
- Decided
- June 14, 2007
- Docket
- 06-5306
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,839 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that party’s “failure to file his notice of appeal in accordance with the statute therefore deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction” — In Re United Services Automobile Ass'n (2010)
- holding that statutory time limits for taking an appeal are jurisdictional based on their “longstanding treatment” as such by the Supreme Court — Group Against Smog & Pollution, Inc. v. Shenango Inc. (2016)
- holding that the statutory time for the taking of an appeal from a district court decision is jurisdictional — Payne Ex Rel. D.P. v. Peninsula School District (2011)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, a District Court purported to extend a party’s time for filing an appeal beyond the period allowed by statute. We must decide whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed after the statutory period but within the period allowed by the District Court’s order. We have long and repeatedly held that the time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner’s untimely notice — even [*207] though filed in reliance upon a District Court’s order— deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.