United States v. James Leroy Martinson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court has jurisdiction over a motion to return property styled as a Rule 41(e) motion, and should treat such motion as a civil equitable proceeding
• holding that district courts are to construe Rule 41(g) motions as civil complaints when no criminal proceeding is pending
• holding that the sixty-day limit for filing a notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure applies to rulings on Rule 41(e) motions
• holding that a district court has jurisdiction over a motion to return property styled as a Rule 41(e) motion, and should treat such motion as a civil equitable proceeding
• recognizing the possibility of damages pursuant to Rule 41(g) when the government destroys seized property
• holding sixty-day period in Rule 4(a)(1)(B) applies even though Rule 41(e) motion was filed in defendant’s criminal case and bore a criminal docket number

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).