Dietsch v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
7 district ·
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Gozlon-Peretz v. United States · McKay v. Jobin · United States v. Virginia · Autek Systems Corp. v. United States · 116 S. Ct. 712 - Neben & Starrett, Inc. v. Chartwell Financial Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There appears to be a growing consensus in the case law that a conviction becomes ‘final’ ... on the date when the petitioner could no longer seek direct review ---- , The consensus opinion ... comports with prior federal law on the timing of 2255 motions. Although the language of § 2255 itself does not obligate a petitioner to complete any direct review before filing a 2255 motion, the courts have created such a requirement in the interests of efficient administration of justice .... This requirement avoids redundancy of effort between direct appeal and collateral attack. It would therefore make little sense to require a petitioner to file the 2255 motion prior to the completion of any direct appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“What constitutes [a] ‘reasonable time’ depends upon the facts of each case, taking into consideration the interest in finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and [the consideration of] prejudice [if any] to other parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Gordon v. Monoson
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.