In the case of Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a party's failure to include one plaintiff’s name in a notice of appeal due to clerical error did not invalidate the entire appeal, but only as it pertained to that individual plaintiff. The court held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c), which requires an appellant to specify parties taking an appeal, is jurisdictional and its requirements are mandatory and may not be waived by courts for "excusable neglect". In this case, sixteen employees sued their employer alleging racial discrimination under Title VII of Civil Rights Act 1964. When they lost at trial level, fifteen plaintiffs were listed on notice of appeal; however due to typographical error one was omitted (Torres). Despite recognizing it as inadvertent mistake, Supreme Court dismissed his claim stating rules must be strictly complied with.

In the dissenting opinion for Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Powell and Scalia, argued that the majority's decision was excessively formalistic and failed to take into account practical realities of litigation. They contended that while procedural rules are important for maintaining order in court proceedings, they should not be so rigidly applied as to prevent justice from being served. In this case, a clerical error resulted in one plaintiff’s name being omitted from a notice of appeal; however, it was clear that there had been an intention to include all plaintiffs in the appeal process. The dissenting justices believed this minor mistake did not justify denying the plaintiff his right to appeal especially when no party suffered any prejudice due to this oversight. They suggested instead adopting a more flexible approach which would allow harmless errors like these without compromising on fair trial standards.