green
Positive treatment
12.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Vialva
See Vialva v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1155 , 194 L.Ed.2d 173 (2016) ; Bernard v. United States , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 892 , 193 L.Ed.2d 788 (2016), reh'g denied , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2154 , 198 L.Ed.2d 226 (2017).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Christopher Vialva
See Vialva v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1155 (2016); Bernard v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 892 (2016), reh’g denied, 137 S. Ct. 2154 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re: Robinson
See Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134 , 1137 n.1 (10th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1155 (2016). 6 flawed for the same reasons we identified in Theron, where the district court granted an ends-of-justice continuance based on “(1) the codefendants’ need for preparation time; (2) the complexity of the case; and (3) the desirability of trying all defendants at once.” Theron, 782 F.2d at 1512 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Robinson
See Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134 , 1137 n.1 (10th Cir. 2015), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1155 , 194 L.Ed,2d 174 (2016). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLC
Compare Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134, 1147 (10th Cir. 2015) (refusing to overrule prior precedent from our circuit because the “collective message” from intervening, related Supreme Court authority was not “so indisputable and pellucid ... that it constitutes intervening (i.e.,.'superseding) law that would permit us to hold (without en banc consideration)” to the contrary), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1155 , 194 L.Ed.2d 174 (2016), with United States v. Brooks, 751 F.3d 1204, 1209-10 (10th Cir. 2014) (“The question, however, is not whether an intervening Supreme C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rocky Mountain Wild v. Walsh
See Wild Horse Observers Ass’n, Inc. v. Jewell, 550 Fed.Appx. 638 , 641 n.2 (10th Cir. 2013); see also Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134, 1147-48 (10th Cir. 2015) (strongly criticizing Tenth Circuit’s previous holding that § 2401(b)'s six-month FTCA filing window is jurisdictional), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1155 , 194 L.Ed.2d 174 (2016).
Christopher Andre VIALVA
v.
UNITED STATES.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 14–8112..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 29, 2016.
136 S. Ct. 1155
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.