Case Citator › United States v. Meyers

United States v. Meyers

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
200 F.3d 715
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2000
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. United States v. Meyers has been criticized on one point. All 31 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Second Circuit called Meyers's rationale for allowing some government sentencing appeals despite completion of a sentence overly broad; that criticism is listed below. Later Tenth Circuit opinions continued to rely on Meyers for its rules on mootness and binding panel precedent.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

31 later cases cite United States v. Meyers; 31 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on United States v. Meyers?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Second Circuit said Meyers's rationale based on the government's remediable injury seemed overly broad unless confined to an appeal seeking more prison time for a defendant available for resentencing.

    United States v. Suleiman · Second Circuit · filed

    Meyers advanced a different rationale for entertaining such an appeal: the Government’s “remediable injury’’ arising from "the trial court’s failure to impose the appropriate sentence pursuant to statute or the sentencing guidelines.” 200 F.3d at 721 n. 3. That rationale, unless limited to an appeal seeking additional prison time for a defendant available to be resentenced, seems overly broad, since in every case alleged to be moot, the party resisting mootness could contend that it had been "injured” by the trial court's error.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Meyers and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace