D.C. Circuit· 7/1/2008

United States v. Van Smith

Citations

530 F.3d 967
382 U.S. App. D.C. 54
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13802
2008 WL 2583026

How courts have described this case

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

noting that the D.C. Circuit has “repeatedly held that an argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for [the court’s] consideration”
comparing delay for new defendants to delay related “to motions made by a co-defendant”
\[A]n argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for[] consideration.\ (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
“We require petitioners and appellants to raise all of their arguments in the opening brief, and have repeatedly held that an argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for our consideration.”
“We require petitioners and appellants to raise all of their arguments in the opening brief, and have repeatedly held that an argument first made in a reply brief ordinarily comes too late for our consideration.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Randolph, Rogers, Griffith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases named United States v. Van Smith

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.