Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., No. 88-1119

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore POSNER, RIPPLE and MANION; PER CURIAM
Citation857 F.2d 1176
PartiesALLEN ARCHERY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., and Paul E. Shepley, Jr., Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date13 October 1988
Docket NumberNo. 88-1119

Page 1176

857 F.2d 1176
12 Fed.R.Serv.3d 310
ALLEN ARCHERY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., and Paul E. Shepley,
Jr., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 88-1119.
United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 7, 1988.
Decided Sept. 29, 1988.
Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 13, 1988.

Jack E. Dominik, Dominik, Stein, Saccacio & Reese, Miami Lakes, Fla., Patrick W. O'Brien, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.

D.A.N. Chase, Linde Thomson Langworthy Kohn & Van Dyke, P.C., Overland Park, Kan., F. Daniel Welsch, Welsch & Hall, Danville, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before POSNER, RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On August 8 we granted the appellee's motion to dismiss Paul Shepley as an appellant. The notice of appeal, under a caption that describes the case as "ALLEN ARCHERY, INC., Plaintiff" v. "PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC. and PAUL E. SHEPLEY, JR., Defendants," states: "Notice is hereby given that Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., defendant, hereby appeals...." Citing Fed.R.App.P. 3(c) and Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988), we rejected the argument that naming Shepley in the caption of the notice cured the omission of his name from the notice itself. Precision and Shepley have filed a petition for rehearing in which they point out that on the day after the notice of appeal was filed, a supersedeas bond was filed in the district court which states that the court had ordered a stay of execution of its judgment, pending appeal, "provided that ... Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc. and Paul E. Shepley, Jr. give a bond" and "that if the said Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc. and Paul E. Shepley, Jr. shall prosecute its appeal to effect," the obligation stated in the bond would be void. The bond, they argue, shows beyond possibility of doubt that Shepley had joined in Precision's appeal from the judgment that had been entered against both of them.

It shows no such thing. It shows only that both defendants were liable on the bond. The reference to "its appeal"--not "their appeal"--is perfectly consistent with the notice of appeal, which gave notice only of the appeal by the neuter defendant--the "it"--the company. Even under the regime that existed before Torres, the regime under which in many circuits, including this one, failure to name each appellant forfeited that party's right to appeal only if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Minority Employees of the Tennessee Dept. of Employment Sec., Inc. v. State of Tenn., Dept. of Employment Sec., No. 88-5429
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • April 26, 1990
    ...only referred to "plaintiffs." We, therefore, disapprove of the blanket statement in Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equip., 857 F.2d 1176, 1177 (7th Cir.1988) (per curiam), that "naming [the appellant] in the caption ... will not As long as the name appears on the face of the doc......
  • Nocula v. Ugs Corp., No. 06-3386.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 24, 2008
    ...literal, and exact compliance" with Rule 3(c)'s requirements is required. Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equip., Inc., 857 F.2d 1176, 1177 (7th Cir. 1988); see also Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988). Notice will be deemed insuff......
  • U.S. v. City of Chicago, Nos. 88-1959
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 24, 1989
    ...Scavenger Co., --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 2409, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988); Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., 857 F.2d 1176 (7th Cir.1988) (per curiam). If appropriate, the appellant can ask us then to consolidate the two appeals, and can argue that the second appea......
  • All Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Vessel M/V Hanjin Yosu, No. 92-55550
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 22, 1993
    ...is possible to describe fewer than the entire group of potential appellants); Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., 857 F.2d 1176, 1177 (7th Cir.1988). See also United States v. Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc., 921 F.2d 911, 913-914 (9th Page 1431 Cir.1990). Defenda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Minority Employees of the Tennessee Dept. of Employment Sec., Inc. v. State of Tenn., Dept. of Employment Sec., No. 88-5429
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • April 26, 1990
    ...only referred to "plaintiffs." We, therefore, disapprove of the blanket statement in Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equip., 857 F.2d 1176, 1177 (7th Cir.1988) (per curiam), that "naming [the appellant] in the caption ... will not As long as the name appears on the face of the doc......
  • Nocula v. Ugs Corp., No. 06-3386.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 24, 2008
    ...literal, and exact compliance" with Rule 3(c)'s requirements is required. Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equip., Inc., 857 F.2d 1176, 1177 (7th Cir. 1988); see also Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988). Notice will be deemed insuff......
  • U.S. v. City of Chicago, Nos. 88-1959
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 24, 1989
    ...Scavenger Co., --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 2409, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988); Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., 857 F.2d 1176 (7th Cir.1988) (per curiam). If appropriate, the appellant can ask us then to consolidate the two appeals, and can argue that the second appea......
  • All Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Vessel M/V Hanjin Yosu, No. 92-55550
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • October 22, 1993
    ...is possible to describe fewer than the entire group of potential appellants); Allen Archery, Inc. v. Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., 857 F.2d 1176, 1177 (7th Cir.1988). See also United States v. Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc., 921 F.2d 911, 913-914 (9th Page 1431 Cir.1990). Defenda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT