Smith v. Berwick

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an opinion had not been eviscerated because, in part, “the Supreme Court’s only discussion of the specific time bar at issue . . . is ambiguous at best”
• noting that if review is sought, one should “carefully follow all filing time limitations and requirements”
• warning that “[flailure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum”
• explaining that “district judges, like panels of the D.C. Circuit, are obligated to follow controlling circuit precedent until either the Circuit, sitting en banc, or the Supreme Court, overrules it” (citations and alterations omitted)
• district courts should “follow the case which directly controls, leaving to [the D.C. Circuit] the prerogative of overruling its own decisions” (quoting Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 207 (1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).