{"id":143,"date":"2017-04-01T14:15:48","date_gmt":"2017-04-01T18:15:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/?p=143"},"modified":"2017-04-01T14:27:42","modified_gmt":"2017-04-01T18:27:42","slug":"supreme-court-to-review-limitations-on-appellate-extensions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/2017\/04\/01\/supreme-court-to-review-limitations-on-appellate-extensions\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court to Review Limitations on Appellate Extensions"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case that will provide much needed clarity about\u00a0the ability\u00a0of district courts to extend appeal deadlines. The case,\u00a0<em>Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago\u00a0<\/em>(No. 16-658), involves the interplay between 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2107(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C).\u00a0The Court will hear the case during its\u00a0October 2017 term.<\/p>\n<p>Section 2107(c) provides that district courts may extend the deadline to appeal &#8220;upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time otherwise set for bringing appeal.\u201d Rule 4(a)(5)(C), however, provides that no\u00a0extension\u00a0&#8220;may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0<em>Hamer<\/em>, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court lacked authority to grant a 60-day extension of an appeal deadline\u00a0in response to a motion that was\u00a0timely filed under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2107(c). Relying\u00a0on the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in\u00a0<em>Bowles v. Russell<\/em>, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), the Seventh Circuit held that &#8220;Rule 4(a)(5)(C) is the vehicle by which \u00a7 2107(c) is employed and it limits a district court\u2019s authority to extend the notice of appeal filing deadline to no more than an additional 30 days.&#8221; Because the\u00a0notice of appeal was filed after the 30-day limitation in Rule 4(a)(5)(C), the Seventh Circuit dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>In reaching that conclusion, the Seventh Circuit sided with the\u00a0Second, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits, which had split with the D.C. and Ninth Circuits on the issue. The Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in\u00a0<em>Hamer<\/em> should resolve the split and provide the bench and bar with much needed certainty about\u00a0deadlines to appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case that will provide much needed clarity about\u00a0the ability\u00a0of district courts to extend appeal deadlines. The case,\u00a0Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago\u00a0(No. 16-658), involves the interplay between 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2107(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C).\u00a0The Court will hear the case during its\u00a0October &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/2017\/04\/01\/supreme-court-to-review-limitations-on-appellate-extensions\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Supreme Court to Review Limitations on Appellate Extensions&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":93,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[25,60,31,75],"ppma_author":[239],"class_list":["post-143","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-appellate","tag-palumbos","tag-procedure","tag-supreme-court"],"authors":[{"term_id":239,"user_id":93,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rmpalumbos","display_name":"Robert M. Palumbos","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2025\/09\/palumbosrob-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/93"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=143"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/appellatelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}