Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-6374 Becker v. Mongtomery, et al.

By: dmc-admin//June 4, 2001//

00-6374 Becker v. Mongtomery, et al.

By: dmc-admin//June 4, 2001//

Listen to this article

“As plainly as Civil Rule 11(a) requires a signature on filed papers, however, so the rule goes on to provide in its final sentence that ‘omission of the signature may be corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.’ ‘Correction can be made,’ the Rules Advisory Committee noted, ‘by signing the paper on file or by submitting a duplicate that contains the signature.’

“The rule was formulated and should be applied as a cohesive whole. So understood, the signature requirement and the cure for an initial failure to meet the requirement go hand in hand. The remedy for a signature omission, in other words, is part and parcel of the requirement itself. Becker proffered a correction of the defect in his notice in the manner Rule 11(a) permits – he attempted to submit a duplicate containing his signature … and therefore should not have suffered dismissal of his appeal for nonobservance of that rule.”

Reversed and remanded.

Local Effect:The decision is consistent with current Seventh Circuit law. “An unsigned notice of appeal, even if it does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of FRCP 11, meets the jurisdictional requirements for appeal.” Robinson v. City of Chicago, 868 F.2d 959, 963, fn.2 (7th Cir.1989).

Ginsburg, J.

On Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests