Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bowles Vs. Russell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 14, 2007

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

70 entries 5 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Curry US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1848
  2. Kontrick Vs. Ryan US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2004
  3. Scarborough Vs. Principi US Supreme Court · May 03, 2004
  4. Houston Vs. Lack US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1988
  5. Day Vs. Mcdonough US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 2006
  6. Syllabus October Term, 2006 Bowles V. Russell
    Search
  7. Griggs v. Provident
    Search
  8. s jurisdiction, see, e.g. , Kontrick v. Ryan
    Search
  9. U. S. 443 , 453, and those based on court rules, which do not, see, e.g. , id., at 454. Arbaugh v. Y &
    Search
  10. H Corp. , 546 U. S. 500 , 505, and Scarborough v. Principi
    Search
  11. cases at all, it can also determine when, and under what conditions, federal courts can hear them. See United States v. Curry
    Search
  12. doctrine, rooted in Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry
    Search
  13. Meat Packers, Inc. , 371 U. S. 215 (per curiam) and applied in Thompson v. INS
    Search
  14. JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Bowles v. Russell
    Search
  15. Opinion of the Court Bowles V. Russell
    Search
  16. Supreme Court of the United States No. 06-5306 Keith Bowles, Petitioner V. Harry
    Search
  17. F. 3d 668, 673 (CA6 2005) (citing Browder v. Director
    Search
  18. accord, Hohn v. United
    Search
  19. Torres v. Oakland
    Search
  20. Court regarded statutory limitations on the timing of appeals as limitations on its own jurisdiction. See Scarborough v. Pargoud
    Search
  21. courts of appeals routinely and uniformly dismiss untimely appeals for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g. , Atkins v. Medical
    Search
  22. Barnhart v. Peabody
    Search
  23. recognized the jurisdictional significance of the fact that a time limitation is set forth in a statute. In Kontrick v. Ryan
    Search
  24. Id., at 454 (quoting Schacht v. United
    Search
  25. U. S. , at 454. See also Eberhart v. United
    Search
  26. Nor do Arbaugh v. Y &
    Search
  27. H Corp. , 546 U. S. 500 (2006), or Scarborough v. Principi
    Search
  28. doctrine, which has its roots in Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry
    Search
  29. and, accordingly, held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the extension. Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry
    Search
  30. illegitimate. Given that this Court has applied Harris Truck Lines only once in the last half century, Thompson v. INS
    Search
  31. per curiam) , several courts have rightly questioned its continuing validity. See, e.g. , Panhorst v. United
    Search
  32. See also Houston v. Lack
    Search
  33. See also Osterneck v. Ernst
    Search
  34. s decisions ultimately rely on United States v. Robinson
    Search
  35. that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. United States v. Sadler
    Search
  36. and one can only speculate as to whether denial of that petition would have been a foregone conclusion. Bowles v. Russell
    Search
  37. Souter, J., Dissenting Bowles V. Russell
    Search
  38. Steel Co. v. Citizens
    Search
  39. for Better Environment , 523 U. S. 83 , 90 (1998) (quoting United States v. Vanness
    Search
  40. Arbaugh v. Y &
    Search
  41. Corp. v. United
    Search
  42. United States v. Robinson
    Search
  43. Eberhart v. United
    Search
  44. id. , at 510 (quoting Scarborough v. Principi
    Search
  45. of limitations, which provides an affirmative defense, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c), and is not jurisdictional, Day v. McDonough
    Search
  46. or excused by rules, such as equitable tolling, that alleviate hardship and unfairness, see Irwin v. Department
    Search
  47. available when there is a good justification for one, for reasons we recognized years ago. In Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry
    Search
  48. Meat Packers, Inc. , 371 U. S. 215 , 217 (1962) (per curiam) , and Thompson v. INS
    Search
  49. a) as a jurisdictional time limit. See ante , at 5 (quoting Barnhart v. Peabody
    Search
  50. meant to create it. Footnote 3 The majority answers that a footnote of our unanimous opinion in Kontrick v. Ryan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial