Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

04-1599 & 04-2353 Fogel v. Gordon & Glickson, P.C.

By: dmc-admin//January 3, 2005//

04-1599 & 04-2353 Fogel v. Gordon & Glickson, P.C.

By: dmc-admin//January 3, 2005//

Listen to this article

“Had we dismissed the appeal, back when the notice of appeal was filed, for want of appellate jurisdiction, on the ground that there was then no final judgment in the district court and the appeal was therefore premature, Katerinos v. United States Department of the Treasury, 368 F.3d 733, 737-38 (7th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); Florian v. Sequa Corp., 294 F.3d 828, 829 (7th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), Fogel would have known to file a new notice of appeal when the amended judgment was issued. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Gripe v. City of Enid, 312 F.3d 1184, 1186 (10th Cir. 2002). By instead merely staying the appeal, we may have led him to believe that his appeal was perfected and merely awaiting the completion of formalities in the district court. He should not have been fooled; it is settled law that the kind of stay issued in this case does not excuse the appellant from having to file a fresh notice of appeal if he wants to appeal from the district court’s final decision. Katerinos v. United States Department of the Treasury, supra, 368 F.3d at 737-38; see also Life Plus Int’l v. Brown, 317 F.3d 799, 804-05 (8th Cir. 2003). And anyway when a rule is unambiguous a litigant is not permitted to rely on erroneous advice, even by a court.”

Dismissed.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lefkow, J., Posner, J.

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