Opinion ID: 516495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cohasset and scituate

Text: 7 The district court issued its order concerning intervention on February 8, 1988. Hull and Nahant S.W.I.M. filed notices of appeal within the required 60 days of the order; Hull filed on March 8, 1988 and Nahant S.W.I.M. filed on March 9, 1988. Cohasset and Scituate, however, did not file their joint notice of appeal until June 27, 1988. 8 The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure are clear that late appeals such as those made by Cohasset and Scituate (4 1/2 months after the court order) are not allowed. Fed.R.App.P. 3, 4. 3 Moreover, Fed.R.App.P. 26(b) states that the court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle: 9 Permitting courts to exercise jurisdiction over unnamed parties after the time for filing a notice of appeal has passed is equivalent to permitting courts to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Because the rules do not grant courts the latter power, we hold that the rules likewise withhold the former. 10 Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., --- U.S. ----, ----, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 2408, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988) (emphasis added). 11 We conclude that there is no appellate jurisdiction over Cohasset's and Scituate's appeal. 12