Footnotes (171)



The Failure of Bowles v. Russell

Scott Dodson

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 appeal

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: February 21, 2008 ; Last revised: November 12, 2012

Suggested Citation

Dodson, Scott, The Failure of Bowles v. Russell. Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 43, 2008. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1095376

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: 1,160
Downloads: 108
Download Rank: 198,749
Footnotes:  171