Association of American Medical Colleges v. Cuomo, 595
| Decision Date | 14 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 595,595 |
| Citation | 913 F.2d 55 |
| Parties | ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Mario CUOMO, Individually, and as Governor of the State of New York, Theodore M. Black, Individually, and as Chancellor, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, Willard A. Genrich, Individually, and as Vice Chancellor, Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, Kenneth B. Clark, Harold E. Newcomb, Emlyn I. Griffith, Mary Alice Kendall, Jorge L. Batista, Louis E. Yavner, Laura Bradley Chodos, Martin C. Barell, Joseph R. Bongiorno, Louise P. Matteoni, J. Edward Meyer, Arlene B. Reed-Delaney, R. Carlos Carballada, Individually, and as Members of the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, Gordon M. Ambach, Individually, and as Commissioner of Education, the University of the State of New York, and Robert Abrams, Individually, and as Attorney General, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. ocket 90-7269. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Robert A. Burgoyne (Carl W. Vogt, Fulbright & Jaworski, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.
Daniel Smirlock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, N.Y. , for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees.
Before LUMBARD, WINTER and MINER, Circuit Judges.
Cross-appellees, eighteen New York State officials, appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of cross-appellant Association of American Medical Colleges ("AAMC"). Cross-appellees filed a timely notice of appeal stating
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the defendants in the above matter hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, from the final order of judgment entered by the Court on February 13, 1990.
AAMC moves for an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the notice of appeal failed to comply with the specificity requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) because it did not list the appealing parties individually. We deny the motion.
Rule 3(c) requires in relevant part that "[t]he notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal." Although failure to name a party in a notice of appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal, see Torres...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cornwell v. Robinson, s. 1014
...such as "defendants appeal" may suffice to give notice that each defendant appeals, see Association of American Medical Colleges v. Cuomo, 913 F.2d 55, 55-56 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 184, 116 L.Ed.2d 146 (1991); Baylis v. Marriott Corp., 906 F.2d 87......
-
Board of Appeals of Rockport v. DeCarolis
...we conclude that the notice of appeal was sufficiently precise to comply with rule 3(c). See Association of American Medical Colleges v. Cuomo, 913 F.2d 55, 56 (2d Cir.1990). Cf. Mariani-Giron v. Acevedo Ruiz, 877 F.2d 1114, 1115-1116 (1st Cir.1989); Cruz v. Melendez, 902 F.2d 232, 235-236 ......