Parrish & Relating Forward Notices of Appeal
Disclosure: I filed amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in Parrish in both the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court.
In Parrish v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a notice of appeal filed before the appeal period is reopened under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
Background on Parrish
I’ve written quite a bit about the Parrish case in the past (and I filed amicus briefs in this case in both the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit). For background and discussions, see these posts:
- The Fourth Circuit Requires a Second Notice of Appeal After the Appeal Window is Reopened
- No Rehearing on Rule 4(a)(6) & Multi-Purpose Notices of Appeal
- Cert Grant on Post-Reopening Notices of Appeal
I’ve also written quite a bit about the more general cumulative-finality doctrine that Parrish implicated, including a 2018 law review article.
In short, the case asked if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(6). The petitioner in Parrish had filed a notice of appeal that the district court had treated as a motion to reopen under Rule 4(a)(6). The district court granted that motion. But the petitioner did not file a new notice of appeal. The Fourth Circuit held that a new notice was required after the appeal window reopened. So according to the Fourth Circuit, the petitioner had failed to file a timely notice of appeal.
An Essentially Unanimous Decision
The Supreme Court more-or-less unanimously reversed.
The Majority on the Longstanding Federal Practice of Cumulative Finality
A six-justice majority recognized the long history of federal courts giving effect to premature notices of appeal. The Court then explained that nothing in the relevant statutes or rules displaced this longstanding federal practice. So that practice applied, and no new notice of appeal was required. Further, the petitioner’s notice—which the district court had treated as a motion to reopen—could work double duty as both that motion and a notice of appeal.
A Concurrence on Motions with Included Filings
Justice Jackson concurred in the judgment. She noted that federal practice often involves motions to extend or reopen a deadline that attach the would-be filing to the motion. When those motions are granted, the district court dockets the filing. And according to Justice Jackson, that was effectively what happened in Parrish—the petitioner filed a motion to reopen with a proposed notice of appeal attached, which the district court then docketed when it granted reopening. So no relation forward was necessary.
Dissenting & Leaving Matters to the Rules Committee
Justice Gorsuch dissented, arguing that this matter should have been left to the Rules Committee. The Committee has recently picked up this issue. Justice Gorsuch thought the case should therefore be dismissed as improvidently granted.
A Nice Recognition of Cumulative Finality
Given my filings in support of the petitioner in this case, it’s no surprise that I think the Court got it right. And although the Court didn’t use the term “cumulative finality,” it did recognize the longstanding federal practice of relating forward notices of appeal—something that I and others call “cumulative finality.” I’m glad the Court did so. The Court’s only other detailed discussion of this issue—FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Insurance—left much to be desired. Hopefully Parrish will provide some more guidance on cumulative-finality issues.
Parrish v. United States, 2025 WL 1657416 (June 12, 2025), available at Error and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
Disclosure: I filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of rehearing its decision in this case and discussed the cert petition with the petitioner’s counsel. Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Parrish v. United States. The case asks if a would-be appellant must file a second notice of appeal after […]
Continue reading....
In Blackwell v. Nocerini, the Sixth Circuit held that a motion to reconsider reset the time to take a qualified-immunity appeal. The denial of immunity was immediately appealable and thus a “judgment” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So a motion to reconsider that denial was effectively a motion under Federal Rule of Civil […]
Continue reading....
In Gelin v. Baltimore County, the Fourth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) applies to appealable interlocutory orders. So a motion to reconsider such an order resets the time to appeal. The court added that a motion can effectively be one seeking reconsideration even though the motion does not cite to Federal […]
Continue reading....
In Christmas v. Hooper, the Fifth Circuit held that the prison-mailbox rule applies to notices of appeal mistakenly sent to a court of appeals. In doing so, the court had to resolve a tension between two portions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. Rule 4(c)(1) says that an imprisoned appellant’s notice of appeal is […]
Continue reading....
In Malek v. Feigenbaum, the Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The court went on to hold that although Rule 4 is a claims-processing rule, it is a mandatory one that is not subject […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....