Second Circuit· 10/18/2006

Burrell v. United States

Citations

467 F.3d 160
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 25886
2006 WL 2973033

How courts have described this case

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

holding that whether a criminal judgment is final for the purpose of Rule 33 is a question of law reviewed de novo
holding mandate impliedly decides that resentencing de novo usually required when it reverses a conviction and remands for resentencing
holding mandate impliedly decides that resentencing de novo usually required when it reverses a conviction and remands for resentencing
observing that if “an appellate court has once decided an issue, the trial court, at a later stage in the litigation, is under a duty to follow the appellate court’s ruling on that issue” (internal quotation marks omitted)
discussing ʺmajor groundsʺ for ʺdepart[ing] from the sound policy of adhering to [a] prior rulingʺ
reviewing de novo whether a mandate foreclosed the district court from exercising discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cardamone, Sotomayor, Walker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Burrell v. United States

28 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.