Legal Opinion
Smith v. Barry
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 14, 1992No. 90-7477PublishedCited by 618 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice O’Connor
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure conditions federal appellate jurisdiction on the filing of a timely notice of appeal. In this case, we hold that a document intended to serve as an appellate brief may qualify as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3.
I
While an inmate at the Maryland State Penitentiary, petitioner William Smith filed a pro se action against two prison administrators, seven corrections officers, two state psychologists, and named respondent Dr. Wayne Barry, a private physician. Suing under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Smith alleged that he suffered from a psychogenic…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Al-Hakim Allah v. Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, R.A. Doeve, Real-Parties-In-InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Larry Cooper, United States of America v. Larry Vivien CooperCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Clarence C. Frace v. Harry E. Russell, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by618 opinions
- Gonzalez v. ThalerSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Samuel Jackson v. Joseph LightseyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2014
- Theodore L. Leblanc v. Great American Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Scarborough v. PrincipiSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Becker v. MontgomerySupreme Court of the United States · 2001
613 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.