Case Citator › Dove v. CODESCO

Dove v. CODESCO

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
569 F.2d 807
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
76 of 76
Citing cases (total)
354
Treatment dates
2008
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Dove v. CODESCO remains binding but was criticized. All 76 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Fourth Circuit said Dove's automatic Rule 59(e) characterization was no longer appropriate after the 1993 amendment to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, while expressly applying Dove because a panel could not overrule it. 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.

354 later cases cite Dove v. CODESCO; 76 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 Dove v. CODESCO?

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 Fourth Circuit disapproved Dove's automatic Rule 59(e) characterization after the amendment to appellate Rule 4 but continued to apply it as binding circuit precedent.

    MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines · Fourth Circuit · filed

    We, however, have continued to cite and apply CODESCO follow- ing the amendment to FRAP 4. See generally Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 573 n.2 (4th Cir. 2004) (noting that because the party "filed the motion within 10 days after the order was entered, the district court should have considered it under Rule 59(e)"). While we believe this approach is no longer appropriate,6 "[a]s a panel, we cannot overrule a prior panel and ‘are bound to apply principles decided by prior decisions of the court to the ques- tions we address.’" R.R. ex rel. R. v. Fairfax County Sch. Bd., 338 F.3d 325, 332 n.6 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Under Seal v. Under Seal, 326 F.3d 479, 484 (4th Cir. 2003)).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dove v. CODESCO 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