Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealcomplianceappellant
jurisdictionappealcomplianceappellant

Related Cases

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 17 O.O.3d 240, 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1
View Case »
U.S. v. Wantuch, 525 F.3d 505, 76 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 430
View Case »
People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522, 372 P.3d 811, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 407, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6750
View Case »
State v. Foxhoven, 161 Wash.2d 168, 163 P.3d 786
View Case »
White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 112 S.Ct. 736, 116 L.Ed.2d 848, 60 USLW 4094, 33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 881
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hackett v. Michigan Corrections Organization, 798 F.2d 469 (Table), 1986 WL 16044

Facts

This Court entered an order on April 2, 1986, directing appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has failed to respond. It appears from the file that the final order was entered October 21, 1985. The notice of appeal filed on March 10, 1986, was 110 days late.

It appears from the file that the final order was entered October 21, 1985. The notice of appeal filed on March 10, 1986, was 110 days late.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal given the late filing of the notice of appeal.

Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal given the late filing of the notice of appeal.

Rule

The failure of an appellant to timely file a notice of appeal deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction. Compliance with Rule 4(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite which this Court can neither waive nor extend.

The failure of an appellant to timely file a notice of appeal deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction. Compliance with Rule 4(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite which this Court can neither waive nor extend.

Analysis

The court applied the rules of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 4(a) and Rule 26(b), to determine that the late filing of the notice of appeal, which was 110 days past the deadline, resulted in a lack of jurisdiction. The court noted that it had no authority to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal.

The court applied the rules of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 4(a) and Rule 26(b), to determine that the late filing of the notice of appeal, which was 110 days past the deadline, resulted in a lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the appeal be and it hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the appeal be and it hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Who won?

The court, as the prevailing party, dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of timely filing.

You must be