Case Citator › United States v. Tajeddini

United States v. Tajeddini

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

Abrogated
Court
First Circuit
Citation
945 F.2d 458
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2000
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Abrogated: all 31 flagged citations have been read. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Flores-Ortega expressly rejected United States v. Tajeddini's rule that counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal is automatically deficient unless the defendant instructed counsel otherwise.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. Tajeddini's separate ruling about counsel for a post appeal motion for new trial continued to be cited.

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. Tajeddini; 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. Tajeddini?

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 rejected Tajeddini's automatic rule for counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal and required a case specific inquiry.

    Roe v. Flores-Ortega · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The Courts of Appeals for the First and Ninth Circuits have answered that question with a bright-line rule: Counsel must file a notice of appeal unless the defendant specifically instructs otherwise; failing to do so is per se deficient. See, e. g., Stearns, 68 F. 3d, at 330; Lozada, supra, at 958; Tajeddini, supra, at 468. Such a rule effectively imposes an obligation on counsel in all cases either (1) to file a notice of appeal, or (2) to discuss the possibility of an appeal with the defendant, ascertain his wishes, and act accordingly. We reject this per se rule as inconsistent with Strickland’s holding that “the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.” 466 U. S., at 688.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Tajeddini 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