United States v. Haynes, Marcus E.

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 three-page \Memorandum Opinion & Order\ containing the district court's reasoning and case citations failed to comply with the separate document requirement
• holding that a three-page “Memorandum Opinion & Order” containing the district court’s reasoning and case citations failed to comply with the separate document requirement
• concluding that an appeal was not time-barred under Rule 58 and citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-03, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993
• “The sole purpose of Rule 58’s separate document requirement was to clarify when the time for an appeal begins to run.”
• “The sole purpose of Rule 58’s separate document requirement was to clarify when the time for an appeal begins to run.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).