Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dolan Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 14, 2010

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

67 entries 5 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Kontrick Vs. Ryan US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2004
  2. United States Vs. Montalvo-murillo US Supreme Court · May 29, 1990
  3. Reed Elsevier, Inc. Vs. Muchnick US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2010
  4. Regions Hospital Vs. Shalala US Supreme Court · Dec 01, 1997
  5. United States Vs. Addonizio US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1979
  6. Dolan v. United
    Search
  7. States - 09-367 (2010) Syllabus October Term, 2009 Dolan V. United
    Search
  8. The prohibition is absolute. It cannot be waived or extended for equitable reasons. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United
    Search
  9. s protection. See, e.g., Kontrick v. Ryan
    Search
  10. or other public official of the power to take the action even if the deadline is missed. See, e.g., United States v. Montalvo-Murillo
    Search
  11. United States v. James
    Search
  12. parties provides a strong indication that Congress did not intend a missed deadline to work a forfeiture. See Brock v. Pierce
    Search
  13. Corey v. United
    Search
  14. here there is no statutory ambiguity sufficiently grievous to warrant its application in this case. Muscarello v. United
    Search
  15. joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. Dolan v. United
    Search
  16. States - 09-367 (2010) Opinion of the Court Dolan V. United
    Search
  17. Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-367 Brian Russell Dolan, Petitioner V. United
    Search
  18. s petition for certiorari on the question. Compare United States v. Cheal
    Search
  19. s authority to enter restitution order past 90 days) and United States v. Balentine
    Search
  20. F. 3d 801 (CA8 2009) (same), with United States v. Maung
    Search
  21. F. 3d 1113 (CA11 2001) (finding no such authority), and United States v. Farr
    Search
  22. to hear a case, to consider pleadings, or to act upon motions that a party seeks to file. See, e.g., Bowles v. Russell
    Search
  23. U. S. 205 (2007). But cf. Kontrick v. Ryan
    Search
  24. see also Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
    Search
  25. The parties cannot waive it, nor can a court extend that deadline for equitable reasons. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United
    Search
  26. Eberhart v. United
    Search
  27. of the power to take the action to which the deadline applies if the deadline is missed. See, e.g., United States v. Montalvo-Murillo
    Search
  28. Brock v. Pierce
    Search
  29. Barnhart v. Peabody
    Search
  30. Zedner v. United
    Search
  31. same in context of benefits assignments). See also Regions Hospital v. Shalala
    Search
  32. officials charged with carrying out mandatory public duties in a timely manner. See id ., at 718 (citing French v. Edwards
    Search
  33. in turn, are consistent with numerous similar decisions made by courts throughout the Nation. See, e.g., Taylor v. Department
    Search
  34. Hutchinson v. Ryan
    Search
  35. State v. Industrial
    Search
  36. La Buy v. Howes
    Search
  37. party responsible for its cause, i.e. , whether the Government or the victim. Cf., e.g., United States v. Stevens
    Search
  38. United States v. Terlingo
    Search
  39. and the Court of Appeals has consolidated the two appeals and decided them together. See, e.g., United States v. Stevens
    Search
  40. United States v. Maung
    Search
  41. cf. United States v. Cheal
    Search
  42. cabin the discretion they properly exercise over scheduling and sentencing matters. Cf., e.g., United States v. Stevens
    Search
  43. United States v. Cheal
    Search
  44. has been applied to a statutory time provision in the criminal context. See United States v. Wiltberger
    Search
  45. Bifulco v. United
    Search
  46. to warrant its application in this case. Muscarello v. United
    Search
  47. States , 524 U. S. 125 , 139 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Caron v. United
    Search
  48. For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is Affirmed. Dolan v. United
    Search
  49. States - 09-367 (2010) Roberts, C. J., Dissenting Dolan V. United
    Search
  50. cf. Corey v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial