Legal Opinion

United States v. Zlatko Hristov

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 27, 2005No. 03-10179PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Scarborough v. PrincipiSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Barnes v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
  2. United States v. ClaroCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
  3. Fakhri v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2007
  4. Breast Cancer Prevention Partners v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
  5. Brindle v. KijakaziDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API