United States v. Zlatko Hristov
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judge.
We answer today a question of law presented for the first time in this Circuit: May a timely filed motion for attorney’s fees under the Hyde Amendment, Pub.L. No. 105-119, Title VI, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2159, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, Statutory Notes, be amended outside the statutory deadline for filing such a motion, to include required information that was omitted from the motion when initially filed? We hold that a motion under the Hyde Amendment may be amended under the “relation back” doctrine. 1
DISCUSSION
Appellant Zlatko Hristov was prosecuted for…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Scarborough v. PrincipiSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barnes v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- United States v. ClaroCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
- Fakhri v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2007
- Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
- Brindle v. KijakaziDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.