{"argument_date":"2001-04-16T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-04-16T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case's counsel argued a timely notice of appeal never lacks jurisdiction solely due to a missing signature.","the opposing side's counsel asserted the Sixth Circuit applied its jurisdictional rule to single appellants.","Chief Justice Rehnquist closed the argument by stating the case was submitted."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 13-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 1, lines 13-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 43-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-9"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 15-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 15-17"}]}],"caption":"Becker v. Montgomery","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.080911Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"the side that brought the case argues a timely appeal survives without a signature. the opposing side claims the missing signature voids jurisdiction.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 13-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 1, lines 13-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 43-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-9"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-04-16T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/00-6374.html","primary_docket":"00-6374","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T17:54:54.668812Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["The Court examines whether a missing signature invalidates a timely appeal."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 13-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 1, lines 13-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 43-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-9"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 16, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case wants the Court to reverse the dismissal.","the opposing side wants the Court to affirm the dismissal."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 13-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 1, lines 13-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 43-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-9"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case argues a timely notice of appeal remains valid without a signature.","the opposing side argues the missing signature destroys the court's jurisdiction."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 13-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 1, lines 13-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 43-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-9"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 15-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 15-17"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This dispute defines the procedural requirements for filing a valid appeal. It determines whether clerical errors can destroy a party's right to review."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 13-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 1, lines 13-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 43-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-9"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 15-17","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 49, lines 15-17"}]}],"slug":"2000-00-6374-becker-v-montgomery","term":"2000","title":"Does an unsigned notice of appeal lack jurisdiction?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 13-3","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 1, lines 13-3"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 43-29","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 27, lines 43-29"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-9","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-6374.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-9"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}