28 U.S.C. § 138
Terms abolished
The district court shall not hold formal terms.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). “See 28 U. S. C. § 138 . In any event, the rule always had an exception for good cause.”
United States v. Carla Florentine Hines, Leroy Dale Hines, Robert E. Woolverton, Anna Mae Hines, & Anthony A. Cassel, 696 F.2d 722 (10th Cir. 1983). “The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such…”
United States v. Calvin W. Breit, 754 F.2d 526 (4th Cir. 1985). “See Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, Criminal 2d, Vol. 3A, § 751 (1982); Sen.”
United States v. Rico, Appeal of Elizabeth Baron, A/K/A \Yolanda Mercado\"", 902 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1990). “§ 3742 , which allows the government to appeal illegal sentences and to have such sentences corrected by the district court on remand.”
Morisseau v. DLA PIPER, 532 F. Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “*624 The ten day rule stated in the statute no longer is applied literally, as 28 U.S.C. § 138 abolished terms of court.”
United States v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 475 F. Supp. 1372 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “” Because the district courts no longer sit in terms, 28 U.S.C. § 138 (1976), the ten-day provision has been replaced, at least by some courts, with statements that the affidavit be filed before trial, see Roussel v.”
Kingman Park Civic Ass'n v. Gray, 956 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D.D.C. 2013). “”); 28 U.S.C. § 138 (“[T]he Secretary shall not approve any program or project .”
In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of Alexander Hartzell, a Witness, 542 F.2d 166 (3rd Cir. 1976). “necessity for the time provisions of the rule arose from the practice of holding terms of court: The limitation on the time for reduction of sentence is designed to extend the power of the judge to reduce a sentence imposed after a trial held near the end of a term, and on the…”
United States v. Kelly, 519 F. Supp. 1029 (D. Mass. 1981). “” Since the abolition of fixed terms for district courts in 1963, 28 U.S.C. § 138 , courts have required litigants to proceed with reasonable diligence in filing a motion and affidavit seeking disqualification of the judge.”
Roussel v. Tidelands Capital Corp., 438 F. Supp. 684 (N.D. Ala. 1977). “” This clear deadline is complicated by the fact that 28 U.S.C. § 138 , amended in 1963, ended formal terms for district courts.”
United States v. Marrapese, 610 F. Supp. 991 (D.R.I. 1985). “The Advisory Committee Note described the elimination as “abolish[ing] the expiration of a term of court as a time limitation for the taking of any step in a criminal proceeding ... In view of the fact that the duration of terms of court varies among the several districts and…”
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 104 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “The ten day rule stated in the statute no longer is applied literally, as 28 U.S.C. § 138 abolished terms of court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.