Skip to main content
D.C. Circuit· 7/13/2001

United States v. Johnson, Robert

Citations

  • 254 F.3d 279
  • 349 U.S. App. D.C. 202
  • 50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 300
  • 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 15627
  • 2001 WL 788086

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).

Judges: Garland, Henderson, Sentelle

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

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.