CHARLIE BERNARD GIFFORD v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• “Nothing in the language of Rule 11 . . . suggests that courts should apply Rule 4(a)’s time limit without also applying its criterion for determining when that limit begins to run.”
• noting, by way of qualification as to the third criterion, that some “courts of appeals have found that including a bit of analysis does not run afoul of the separate judgment requirement,” but reserving judgment on that issue
• “The fact that the page is labeled ‘Order’ rather than ‘Judgment’ is not relevant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).