United States v. McGaughy

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred or waived by consent, estoppel, or failure to challenge
• observing that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred or waived by consent, estoppel, or failure to challenge
• noting that the Henderson Court ultimately “cabined the scope of its analysis to ‘review by an Article I tribunal as part of a unique administrative scheme’”
• holding that “Rule 35(a)’s deadline [has] jurisdictional force.”
• stating the general rule that a defendant’s failure to raise an issue on direct appeal procedurally defaults the opportunity to raise it in a § 2255 motion unless he or she can show cause and prejudice
• “Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred or waived by consent, estoppel, or failure to challenge jurisdiction early in the proceedings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).