Case Citator › United States v. Orocio

United States v. Orocio

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

Abrogated
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
645 F.3d 630
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
2012–2013
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. United States v. Orocio is abrogated in part: all 34 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed adverse treatments are listed below. Chaidez v. United States displaced its holding that Padilla applies retroactively on collateral review.
More on how this was screened

Its separate reasoning about plea prejudice and the duty to advise remains cited favorably.

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.

34 later cases cite United States v. Orocio; 34 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. Orocio?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court held that Padilla announced a new rule and does not apply retroactively, displacing Orocio's contrary retroactivity holding.

    Chaidez v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Agreeing with the Third Circuit’s view, she argued that Padilla “broke no new ground” because it merely applied established law about a lawyer’s “duty to consult” with a client. 655 F. 3d, at 695 (quoting United States v. Orocio, 645 F. 3d 630, 638-639 (CA3 2011); internal quotation marks omitted). ... Holding that it does not, we affirm the Seventh Circuit.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to Follow

  • The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected Orocio's conclusion that Padilla applies retroactively on collateral review.

    State v. Gaitan · Supreme Court of New Jersey · filed

    The Third Circuit, the first Court of Appeals to address the issue, initially concluded that Padilla involved the application of the existing Strickland test, which made its holding applicable on collateral review. See United States v. Orocio, 645 F.3d 630, 634 (2011). ... Guided by federal retroactivity law, we are persuaded that Padilla represents a new rule of law that, under federal law, is not retroactive and is therefore inapplicable to cases on collateral review.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Orocio 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