United States v. Philip Martin Sadler
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
BERZON, Circuit Judge:
The question we address concerns the application of two recent Supreme Court cases, Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam), and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004), to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) 4(b). We have long assumed that FRAP 4 is, in general, “mandatory and jurisdictional,” and therefore not forfeitable1 or waivable. Kontrick and *934Eberhart, however, clarified that procedural rules formerly referred to as “mandatory and jurisdictional” may be, instead, simply…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Kontrick v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- United States v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Snyder v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- Bowles v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- United States v. Jacobo CastilloCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- United States v. FriasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- United States v. LopezCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2009
- United States v. UrutyanCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2009
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.