Case Citator › Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.

Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
487 U.S. 312
Decided
Confirmed treatments
5
Flagged citations read
55 of 55
Citing cases (total)
55
Treatment dates
1991–2012
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. The 1993 amendment to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) superseded Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.'s strict party-naming result. All 55 flagged citations have been read, and the five confirmed treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

The amended rule permits an unnamed party's appeal when the notice makes that party's intent to appeal objectively clear; later courts still apply Torres's requirement of adequate notice where that intent is unclear.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

55 later cases cite Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.; 55 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • The Fifth Circuit applied amended Rule 3(c) retroactively and heard an attorney's appeal although the notice had not formally named him as an appellant.

    Garcia v. Wash · Fifth Circuit · filed

    We note, however, that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure--specifically Rule 3(c) upon which the court in Torres relied--have recently been amended. The language of, and advisory comments to, the amendments to Rule 3(c) indicate that their aim was to overrule Torres and its progeny. ... We hold that it is "just and practicable" to apply the amendments to Rule 3(c) retroactively. ... Applying the amended Rule 3(c) in this case, we find that Moebius has sufficiently evidenced his intent to appeal the sanctions order against him within the four corners of at least one of the notices of appeal in this case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit applied amended Rule 3(c) to hear a sanctioned attorney's appeal despite a Torres-based objection to the notice.

    Chavez v. City of Lynwood · Ninth Circuit (unpublished) · filed

    Chavez argues that we do not have jurisdiction to hear Paquette's appeal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (1988). However, Fed.R.App.P. 3(c), the rule upon which the Court in Torres relied, has been amended to state that "[a]n appeal will not be dismissed ... for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice." ... In accord with these cases, we hold that we have jurisdiction to hear Paquette's appeal because it is just and practicable to do so.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit applied amended Rule 3(c) to hear an unnamed attorney's appeal because the notice made his intent to appeal clear.

    Retail Flooring Dealers of America, Inc. v. Beaulieu of America, LLC · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Rule 3(c) is a jurisdictional requirement. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988), superseded by statute. Torres held that if a party failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 3(c) by not naming a party in their notice of appeal, an appellate court lacked jurisdiction over that party. Id. ... Rule 3(c) was revised in 1993 to make clear that an appeal must not be dismissed for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is clear from the notice. ... Counsel’s clear intent to appeal the district court’s sanction makes him a party to this appeal under Rule 3(c).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Tenth Circuit declined to extend Torres's party-identification ruling to premature notices of appeal.

    Sweger v. Texaco, Inc. · Tenth Circuit (unpublished) · filed

    However, Pennzoil's reading of Torres is overly broad. Because the Court in Torres was primarily concerned with the requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 3(c) and did not address the issue of premature notices of appeal, Torres does not require us to alter the procedure set forth in Lewis.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Supreme Court declined to apply Torres's reasoning about notices of appeal to the issue-identification requirement for habeas certificates of appealability.

    Gonzalez v. Thaler · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The dissent claims that we fail to give stare decisis effect to Torres. Post, at 163-164, 181 L. Ed. 2d, at 644-645. Setting aside the fact that Torres involved an unrelated Federal Rule featuring a different textual, contextual, and historical backdrop, the dissent notably fails to grapple with—indeed, its opinion is bereft of quotation to—any supporting reasoning in that opinion. That reasoning is simply not applicable here.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace