Citation network
Dodd Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 2005
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
-
Dodd v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 04-5286 (2005) Syllabus October Term, 2004 Dodd V. UnitedSearch
-
and 846, should be set aside because it was contrary to Richardson v. UnitedSearch
-
as to Part II, except for n. 4. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Dodd v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 04-5286 (2005) Opinion of the Court Dodd V. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 04-5286 Michael Donald Dodd, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
Because Dodd did not file a petition for certiorari, his conviction became final on August 6, 1997. See Clay v. UnitedSearch
-
for knowingly and intentionally engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, based on our decision in Richardson v. UnitedSearch
-
did not begin to run until April 19, 2002, when the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in Ross v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States v. LopezSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
CA5 2001) (same), with Pryor v. UnitedSearch
-
and United States v. ValdezSearch
-
marks omitted). Because the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit did not hold the right recognized in Richardson v. UnitedSearch
-
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. UnionSearch
-
Planters Bank, N. A. , 530 U. S. 1 , 6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Tyler v. CainSearch
-
post, at 1. Justice Stevens analogizes this case to Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It is so ordered. Dodd v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 04-5286 (2005) Stevens, J., Dissenting Dodd V. UnitedSearch
-
Because the same anomalous factor is present in both this case and in Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. UnitedSearch
-
Wilson v. GrahamSearch
-
See, e.g., Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 584 (2002) (applying Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
decision of the Supreme Court announcing a new rule. That result is certainly true for Dodd himself. Richardson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Ross v. UnitedSearch
-
reject), we should still interpret the text in a manner that would avoid such an absurd result. See, e.g., Clinton v. CitySearch
-
Church of Holy Trinity v. UnitedSearch
-
Congress could have intended. Although in enacting AEDPA Congress was clearly concerned with finality, see Duncan v. WalkerSearch
-
quoting TRW Inc. v. AndrewsSearch
-
one year of recognizing it. Unfortunately for such prisoners, however, this Court has never done so since Teague v. LaneSearch
-
history or elsewhere in the text that Congress specifically intended such a result. See Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. NighSearch
-
interpretation of this provision is the correct one. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Tyler v. CainSearch
-
Emphasis added.) See Ashley v. UnitedSearch
-
every Circuit except the Sixth Circuit, in which a prisoner would have had six months to file his petition. See Murr v. UnitedSearch
-
Jan. 7, 2000). In the five other Circuits besides the Eleventh to have decided the issue, all held Richardson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Santana-Madera v. UnitedSearch
-
Lanier v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MontalvoSearch
-
United States v. Barajas-DiazSearch
-
Ross v. UnitedSearch
-
of Richardson , but that too was decided more than a year after Richardson itself. See United States v. ScottSearch
-
and prisoners would be similarly barred from taking advantage of any such decision. Footnote 8 In Tyler v. CainSearch
-
Graham County and the approach I would take here has support in our prior case law. In Fleischmann Constr. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. TimbersSearch
-
this, see n. 8, supra, but we have never actually recognized an instance in which that has occurred. Dodd v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 04-5286 (2005) Ginsburg, J., Dissenting Dodd V. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial