United States v. Dennis Dunegan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “in the absence of any applicable statute enacted by Congress, or an allegation that the criminal proceedings were invalid or illegal, a District Court does not have the jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record, even when ending in an acquittal”
• holding that “in the absence of any applicable statute enacted by Congress, or an allegation that the criminal proceedings were invalid or illegal, a District Court does not have the jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record, even when ending in an acquittal”
• finding that, when a petition rests on equitable grounds, “a District Court does not have the jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record, even when ending in acquittal”
• explaining that ancillary jurisdiction is meant to permit disposition by a single court of factually interdependent claims and to enable a court to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees
• applying Kokkonen and holding that “a District Court does not have the jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record” on equitable grounds
• “in the absence of any applicable statute enacted by Congress, or an allegation that the criminal proceedings were invalid or illegal, a [trial] [c]ourt does not have the jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record, even when the case ended in acquittal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).