The Failure of Bowles v. Russell
University of California Hastings College of the Law
Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 43, 2008
This article, written for the Supreme Court Review issue of Tulsa Law Review, critiques Bowles v. Russell - perhaps last term's most underrated case - which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional, which would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the case on its narrowest grounds. This Article explains where Bowles went wrong, what it should have done, and how it may affect future questions on the jurisdictionality of rules and limits.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 19
Keywords: jurisdictionality, bowles, time limits, notice of appealAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: February 21, 2008 ; Last revised: November 12, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.390 seconds