Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Eighth Circuit· 3/13/2008

Steele v. United States

Citations

  • 518 F.3d 986
  • 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5341
  • 2008 WL 657847

About this case

Steele v. United States

Steele v. United States, 113 U.S. 128 (1885), was an appeal of a case which held that a private sale of old material that arose from the breaking up of a vessel of war , made by an officer of the Navy Department to a contractor for repairs of a war vessel and machinery, is a violation of law.[1]

The allowance of the estimated value of such material in the settlement of such contractor's accounts is a violation of law.

A settlement of such accounts at the Navy Department and at the Treasury , in which the contractor was debited with the material at the estimated value, does not preclude the United States from showing that the estimates were far below the real value, and from recovering the difference between the amount allowed and the real value.

Delay in enforcing a claim arising out of an illegal sale of property of the United States at a value far below its real worth cannot be set up as a bar to the recovery of its value.

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_v._United_States&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: See also")

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_v._United_States&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: References")

  1. ↑ Steele v. United States, 113 U.S. 128 (1885).

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_v._United_States&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steele_v._United_States&oldid=1330671800 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that because there is no right to counsel when seeking a writ of certiorari there can be no ineffective assistance
  • recognizing that judicial factfinding at sentencing is \deemed constitutionally permissible under Booker . . .\
  • “Due process does not, however, guarantee a constitutional right to counsel for a litigant seeking to file a certiorari petition in the United States Supreme Court.”
  • “Due process does not . . . guarantee a constitutional right to counsel for a litigant seeking to file a certiorari petition in the United States Supreme Court.”
  • addressing right to counsel for certiorari petition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Loken, Hansen, Murphy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Steele v. United States

65 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.