United States v. Michael Meyer

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that federal courts lack ancillary jurisdiction over motions to expunge criminal records based solely on equitable grounds
• recognizing that a district court “may have ancillary jurisdiction to [expunge] in extraordinary cases to preserve its ability to function successfully by enabling it to correct an injustice caused by an illegal or invalid criminal proceeding”
• holding “that post-Kokkonen a motion to expunge a criminal record that is based solely on equitable grounds does not invoke the ancillary jurisdiction of the district court”
• holding “that post-Kokkonen a motion to expunge a criminal record that is based solely on equitable grounds does not invoke the ancillary jurisdiction of the district court”
• describing the district court's authority to consider expungement requests based on unlawful arrests or convictions
• describing the district court’s authority to consider expungement requests based on unlawful arrests or convictions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).