Legal Opinion
United States v. Hilario
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decided July 17, 2000No. 00-1406PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SELYA, Circuit Judge.
Fermín Hilario moved to dismiss an indictment brought against him, claiming that the protracted tenure of a court-appointed interim United States Attorney contravened applicable federal statutes, violated the Appointments Clause, offended the separation-of-powers principle and, in the end, rendered the indictment a nullity. The court below did not reach Hilario’s constitutional claims but nonetheless granted his motion, ruling that the interim United States Attorney’s extended service flouted congressional intent. The government appeals on an expedited basis. Concluding…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Mistretta v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Church of the Holy Trinity v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Freytag v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Chiang v. Verizon New England, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2010
- United States v. Sotomayor-VazquezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Dubon-OteroCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002
- 229 Main Street Ltd. Partnership v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (In Re 229 Main Street Ltd. Partnership)Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Lopez-LopezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.