U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2006

Aponte-Torres v. Univ. of Puerto Rico

Aponte-Torres v. Univ. of Puerto Rico
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Decided May 10, 2006
445 F.3d 50 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)
Aponte-Torres v. Univ. of Puerto Rico

Cases that cite this one

57 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 05-1534

ANTONIO APONTE-TORRES ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on April 14, 2006 is corrected as follows:

Starting at page 15, line 21, and going through page 16, line 12, delete the following text: notice of appeal refers only to the district court's order of dismissal, entered February 14, 2005. It makes no mention of the separate order staying discovery, entered December 1, 2004.

That is game, set, and match. By rule, a notice of appeal must specify the particular order to which the appeal is addressed. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (mandating that a notice of appeal "designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed"). Failure to identify a given order undermines an appellant's ability to dispute that order in the court of appeals. See, e.g., Shelby v. Superformance Int'l, Inc., 435 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2006); Kotler v. Am. Tobacco Co., 981 F.2d 7, 10-11 (1st Cir. 1992). The plaintiffs offer no persuasive reason why the denominate-or-waive rule should not be enforced in this instance.

We add, moreover, that even if this assignment of error were preserved, it would fail. The plaintiffs' The resulting sentence should begin "The plaintiffs' attack"

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.