BrunoBuilt, Inc. v. Erstad Architects, PA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a laches defense is inapplicable to a statute providing that a motion to vacate a sentence “may be made at any time”
• holding that the “only question” on a Rule 35(a) motion is “whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face” (emphasis added)
• stating that under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and ... the doctrine of laches is inapplicable.”
• holding, under federal criminal statutes, that a defendant may not be punished for both armed bank robbery and receiving stolen bank property
• stating that “subsection (c) was not designed to increase the punishment for him who robs a bank but only to provide punishment for those who receive the loot from the robber”
• stating that the question under Rule 85 is “whether the sentence imposed was illegal on its face”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).