Case Citator › United States v. Christopher Simmonds

United States v. Christopher Simmonds

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

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
111 F.3d 737
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
1999–2003
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. United States v. Christopher Simmonds was overruled in part on the deadline for motions filed during the first year after AEDPA took effect. United States v. Hurst held, with the Tenth Circuit's en banc agreement, that Simmonds's April 23, 1997 deadline was dictum and that a motion filed on the April 24 anniversary was timely.
More on how this was screened

The First Circuit had separately rejected Simmonds's earlier deadline in Rogers v. United States. Both treatments are listed below. All 31 flagged citations have been read; later opinions continue to apply Simmonds's other holdings.

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. Christopher Simmonds; 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. Christopher Simmonds?

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 Tenth Circuit, with its en banc court's approval, overruled Simmonds's statement that the filing grace period ended on April 23, 1997, and held that filing on the April 24 anniversary was timely.

    United States v. Hurst · Tenth Circuit · filed

    The statement in Simmonds that the grace period ended on April 23, 1997, is therefore dictum and does not control our decision in the instant case. We have circulated this footnote to the en banc court, which has unanimously agreed that to the extent Simmonds and any of our other cases are inconsistent with the rule announced herein, they are hereby ... overruled.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

  • The First Circuit rejected Simmonds's April 23 deadline and held that the grace period ended on April 24, 1997.

    Rogers v. United States · First Circuit · filed

    See Flanagan v. Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 200-02 (5th Cir.1998); Ross, 150 F.3d at 103 ("When a statute of limitations is measured in years, the last day for instituting the action is the anniversary date of the start of the limitations period. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)."); contra Goodman, 151 F.3d at 1337; Burns, 134 F.3d at 111; Calderon, 128 F.3d at 1287; Simmonds, 111 F.3d at 746; Lindh, 96 F.3d at 866 (all implying or stating that grace period ends on April 23, 1997)
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads United States v. Christopher Simmonds 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