{"id":631,"date":"2014-04-29T07:15:11","date_gmt":"2014-04-29T07:15:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=631"},"modified":"2023-07-25T15:55:52","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T19:55:52","slug":"2-parties-also-may-appeal-within-20-days-filing-notice-appeal-adverse-interests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/appeal-process\/2-parties-also-may-appeal-within-20-days-filing-notice-appeal-adverse-interests\/","title":{"rendered":"(2) PARTIES ALSO MAY APPEAL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL ADVERSE TO ITS INTERESTS."},"content":{"rendered":"
\"ID-100215167<\/a>

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net<\/p><\/div>\n

In addition to the initial 20 day period for filing an appeal, Rule 4(a) of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in relevant part:\u00a0 \u201cIf a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may file a notice of appeal within twenty (20) days of the date on which the first notice of appeal was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this subdivision, whichever period last expires.\u201d\u00a0 R.I. Sup. Ct. R. App. P. 4(a).<\/p>\n

In Miller v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co., No. 2013-63-Appeal<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that pursuant to Rule 4(a), when a party files a notice of appeal, any party adverse to that appeal may file a notice of appeal within 20 days of the filing of that notice of appeal.\u00a0 This is true even if the party seeking to invoke the rule has already filed a notice of appeal in the case.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 8-9.<\/p>\n

In Miller<\/i>, judgment had entered in favor of the plaintiff, David Miller (\u201cMiller\u201d), and against Defendants Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (\u201cMetropolitan\u201d) and Amica Mutual Insurance Co. (\u201cAmica\u201d) on May 31, 2012.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2-3.\u00a0 Thereafter, Metropolitan and Amica filed renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for a new trial.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 3.\u00a0 The trial justice denied Metropolitan\u2019s motions but granted Amica\u2019s motion for judgment as a matter of law.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 The trial justice also conditionally granted Amica\u2019s motion for a new trial.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 An order reflecting the decision as to Metropolitan\u2019s motions and a separate order reflecting the decision as to Amica\u2019s motions entered on August 20, 2012.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 3.<\/p>\n

On August 27, 2012, Miller filed a timely notice of appeal, listing Amica as the only defendant and citing the August 20, 2012 order in favor of Amica as the subject of his appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 On August 31, 2012, Metropolitan filed a timely notice of appeal from the May 31, 2012 judgment and the August 20, 2012 order denying its motions.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Metropolitan identified itself, Amica and a third defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, on its notice of appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Thereafter, on September 18, 2012, Miller filed a cross-appeal from the May 31, 2012 judgment.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Metropolitan moved to dismiss Miller\u2019s cross-appeal as untimely on the basis that it was not filed within the initial 20-day appeal period that began to run after entry of the August 20, 2012 orders.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0\u00a0 However, the trial justice denied Metropolitan\u2019s motion, reasoning that Miller\u2019s cross-appeal was timely because it was filed within 20 days of Metropolitan\u2019s August 31, 2012 notice of appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 4.\u00a0 Metropolitan appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

On appeal, Metropolitan argued that Miller could not invoke Rule 4(a) to file an appeal within 20 days of another party\u2019s filing of an appeal because Miller had already filed his own appeal.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 5.\u00a0 The Supreme Court disagreed.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 6-9.<\/p>\n

Instead, the Supreme Court held that Rule 4(a) \u201cshould be interpreted to provide a twenty-day appeal period after the first timely notice of appeal from an adverse party<\/i>.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 6.\u00a0 According to the Court, Rule 4 was designed to \u201c\u2018allow all parties an opportunity to see and respond to the actions of their adversaries.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 6 (quoting Lee v. Coahoma County Mississippi<\/i>, 937 F.2d 220, 223 (5th Cir. 1991)).<\/p>\n

At the time Miller filed his initial appeal, he did not know that Metropolitan would file an appeal.\u00a0 It was not until Metropolitan filed its appeal on August 31, 2012 that Miller had notice of an appeal from an adverse party.\u00a0 Thus, Miller could invoke Rule 4(a) and file his cross-appeal within 20 days of Metropolitan\u2019s notice of appeal. Id<\/i>. at 8-9.\u00a0 Miller\u2019s cross-appeal was therefore timely.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 9.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In addition to the initial 20 day period for filing an appeal, Rule 4(a) of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in relevant part:\u00a0 \u201cIf a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[56,18,10,14],"class_list":["post-631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-appeal-process","tag-appeal-process","tag-appellate-practice","tag-notice-of-appeal","tag-rhode-island-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/631\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}