Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1097641
 
 

Footnotes (55)



 


 



Appreciating Mandatory Rules: A Reply to Critics


Scott Dodson


University of California Hastings College of the Law


Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, Vol. 102, p. 228, 2008

Abstract:     
In Bowles v. Russell, the Court held that the statutory time limitation for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. In a short essay published in Northwestern University Law Review's Colloquy, I critiqued that decision, suggested a better approach, and previewed some of the difficulties that the decision may cause for the future. Professors Perry Dane and Beth Burch and Mr. King Poor, Esq. responded. This short reply to their responses develops additional reasons for characterizing the time to file a notice of appeal as mandatory but nonjurisdictional.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 11

Keywords: Bowles, Colloquy, Poor, Dane, Burch, time to appeal, notice of appeal, jurisdictionality, mandatory

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 26, 2008 ; Last revised: November 12, 2012

Suggested Citation

Dodson, Scott, Appreciating Mandatory Rules: A Reply to Critics. Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, Vol. 102, p. 228, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1097641

Contact Information

Scott Dodson (Contact Author)
University of California Hastings College of the Law ( email )
200 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
United States
415-581-8959 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://https://www.uchastings.edu/faculty-administration/faculty/dodson/index.html

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 548
Downloads: 55
Download Rank: 221,843
Footnotes:  55

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.219 seconds