United States v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
423 F.3d 271 · 2005
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Pennsylvania Western District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 18 U.S.C. § 3742 · 21 U.S.C. § 843 (§ 403 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Libretti v. United States · United States of America v. Ceverilo Chambers · United States v. Petrie · United States v. Daddino · United States v. Loe
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While Rule 36 allows a court to correct clerical errors or errors of oversight or omission “in the record,” it only allows correction of clerical errors in the judgment or order. This difference in language is important. While Rule 36 provides a broad mandate to correct a variety of errors in ancillary parts of the record — -the dates of documents, the indictment, etc. — it provides only a strictly limited authority to correct the court’s judgment or order. The judgment of a court, unlike the rest of the court’s record, has legal effect; substantive changes to the judgment may normally be made only by appellate review or similar procedures.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The District Court’s error can properly be regarded as clerical because (1) the parties stipulated to the forfeiture; (2) a preliminary order of forfeiture was issued; and (3) the omission of the final order of forfeiture resulted from an organizational failure, not a legal error. We have said that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) [the civil analogue of Rule 36] ... is limited to the correction of clerical mistakes; it encompasses only errors mechanical in nature, apparent on the record, and not involving an error of substantive judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.