Canale v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
969 F.2d 13 · 1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 2018
4 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Kliewer v. New Jersey · United States v. Eichman · United States v. Healy · United States v. Dieter · Vasquez v. Harris
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.
“While we are unaware of any rule of criminal or appellate procedure which addresses the subject of timeliness of a motion for reconsideration, [n]umerous decisions have found the government's interlocutory appeal to be timely ... when a motion for ... reconsideration was filed within thirty days following the order appealed from.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A motion for reconsideration in a criminal case must be filed within the period of time allotted for filing a notice of appeal in order to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. Therefore, in a criminal case, the government has thirty days in which to seek reconsideration of a final judgment or other appealable order.”
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.