Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Nguyen Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 09, 2003

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 5 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Lehman Brothers Vs. Schein US Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1974
  2. Blessing Vs. Freestone US Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1997
  3. Moran Vs. Dillingham US Supreme Court · May 01, 1899
  4. United States Vs. Olano US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1993
  5. United States Vs. Atkinson US Supreme Court · Feb 03, 1936
  6. Nguyen v. United
    Search
  7. States - 539 U.S. 69 (2003) October Term, 2002 Syllabus Nguyen V. United
    Search
  8. Together with No. 02-5034, Phan v. United
    Search
  9. courts, even when their jurisdiction is similar to that of an Article III United States District Court. E. g., Mookini v. United
    Search
  10. title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment to office is deficient, Ryder v. United
    Search
  11. defect of statutory authority, McDowell v. United
    Search
  12. congressional policy concerning the proper organization of the federal courts, see, e. g., American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville
    Search
  13. court of appeals, even when there was a quorum of judges competent to consider the appeal. See, e. g., United States v. American-Foreign
    Search
  14. Guam v. Olsen
    Search
  15. by the District Court of Guam. See Olsen, 431 U. S., at 200-201 (citing Agana Bay Dev. Co. (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Supreme
    Search
  16. used in Title 28. Mookini v. United
    Search
  17. is similar to that of a United States District Court created under Article III. Ibid. See also Summers v. United
    Search
  18. Stephens v. Cherokee
    Search
  19. Ryder v. United
    Search
  20. defect of statutory authority. Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
    Search
  21. U. S. 530 , 535 (1962) (plurality opinion of Harlan, J.). In McDowell v. United
    Search
  22. in a Circuit Judge's designation of a District Judge for temporary service in another district. See also Ball v. United
    Search
  23. was not raised in a timely manner. Glidden, 370 U. S., at 536 (plurality opinion). In American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville
    Search
  24. The American Constr. Co. rule was again applied in William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International
    Search
  25. Id., at 651. See also Moran v. Dillingham
    Search
  26. Johnson v. Manhattan
    Search
  27. prohibition at play in United States v. American-Foreign
    Search
  28. the Article III character of the courts of appeals is more than a trivial concern, cf. Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon
    Search
  29. powers to circumvent the obligation to assess trial errors for their prejudicial effect. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United
    Search
  30. even though urged to do so, when the error alleged was the improper composition of that court. See United States v. American-Foreign
    Search
  31. law permits a quorum to proceed to judgment when one member of the panel dies or is disqualified. United States v. Allied
    Search
  32. court of appeals, even when there was a quorum of judges competent to consider the appeal. See United States v. American-Foreign
    Search
  33. William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International
    Search
  34. American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville
    Search
  35. Tobin v. Ramey
    Search
  36. Mur ray v. National
    Search
  37. below. United States v. Olano
    Search
  38. U. S. 625 , 631-632 (2002) (quoting Johnson v. United
    Search
  39. Jones v. United
    Search
  40. Olano, supra, at 736 (quoting United States v. Young
    Search
  41. standard that should guide the exercise of remedial discretion under Rule 52(b) almost 70 years ago in United States v. Atkinson
    Search
  42. for ignoring our controlling precedents, none of which is persuasive. First, the Court's reliance on United States v. American-Foreign
    Search
  43. test faithfully. The Court also relies mistakenly on William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. International
    Search
  44. Curtiss Marine Turbine Co., 228 U. S. 645 (1913), and American Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville
    Search
  45. Yakus v. United
    Search
  46. at 465. See also Cotton, 535 U. S., at 631-633 (applying plain-error review to a claimed violation of Apprendi v. New
    Search
  47. Plaut v. Spendthrift
    Search
  48. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor
    Search
  49. Syllabus Nguyen V. United
    Search
  50. Phan v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial