context: We lack authority to modify the judgment in defendants' favor, however, because they have not filed a cross appeal and thus cannot enlarge their rights in this court. But the fact that the district court's rationale would have logically dictated a judgment more favorable to defendants does not preclude defendants from relying on that rationale to support the judgment they did receive.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 93 F.3d 219, 224
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that a cross appeal is unnecessary so long as the appellee does not seek to modify the judgment in its favor
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Neal, 93 F.3d 219, 224 (6th Cir.1996) (noting that a cross appeal is unnecessary so long as the appellee does not seek to modify the judgment in its favor); see also Conover v. Lein, 87 F.3d 905, 908-09 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming dismissal without prejudice after concluding that the dismissal should have been with prejudice); Arvie v. Broussard, 42 F.3d 249, 250-51 (5th Cir.1994) (same).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 87 F.3d 905, 908-09
citation_b.parenthetical: affirming dismissal without prejudice after concluding that the dismissal should have been with prejudice
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Neal, 93 F.3d 219, 224 (6th Cir.1996) (noting that a cross appeal is unnecessary so long as the appellee does not seek to modify the judgment in its favor); see also Conover v. Lein, 87 F.3d 905, 908-09 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming dismissal without prejudice after concluding that the dismissal should have been with prejudice); Arvie v. Broussard, 42 F.3d 249, 250-51 (5th Cir.1994) (same).