the timely filing of a cross-appeal should henceforth be treated as mandatory and jurisdictional. Although Torres dealt only with whether the failure to name a party present ed a jurisdictional bar to appeal, the Young Radiator court believed that the Supreme Court's broad language iii that case, about the mandatory nature of the timing rules in Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4, indicated that the time limit for cross-appeals in Rule 4(a)(3) was also jurisdictional. The two circuits employing the "rule of practice" approach to have reconsidered this issue after Torres have either expressly held that Torres rendered the cross-appeal time limit jurisdictional or have stated as much in dicta. See EF Operating Corp. v. American Bldgs., 993 F.2d 1046, 1049 n. 1 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Stockstill v. Petty Ray Geophysical, 888 F.2d
holding that a time limit for filing a complaint as a creditor in bankruptcy proceedings is not jurisdictional holding that the failure to file a petition for crossappeal within the statutory time limit is a jurisdictional defect that bars the court from hearing the crossappeal holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the crossappeal time limit is jurisdictional holding that the thirty day time limit was mandatory but not jurisdictional