Case Citator › United States v. Melendez-Santana

United States v. Melendez-Santana

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

Overruled in part
Court
First Circuit
Citation
353 F.3d 93
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
29 of 29
Citing cases (total)
29
Treatment dates
2005
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. United States v. Melendez-Santana was overruled in part by the First Circuit sitting en banc in United States v. Padilla. Padilla ended automatic reversal for an unpreserved delegation error; ordinary plain error review now applies.
More on how this was screened

Melendez-Santana's holding that a judge must set the maximum number of drug tests remains in force. All 29 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below.

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.

29 later cases cite United States v. Melendez-Santana; 29 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. Melendez-Santana?

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

Overruled in part

  • The First Circuit overruled Melendez-Santana's rule requiring automatic reversal for unpreserved delegation errors and required ordinary plain error review.

    United States v. Padilla · First Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We now overrule that portion of the panel opinion in Meléndez-Santana that requires automatic reversal for delegation errors, hold that conventional plain error principles must be applied in such cases, proceed to analyze the delegation error here under those principles, and conclude that despite the delegation error, Padilla’s sentence may stand.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Melendez-Santana 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