United States v. One Thousand Seven Hundred & Fifty-Six Shares

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that parties may be “prejudiced by an extended passage of time between [an administrative agency decision] and the Superior Court proceedings, with all the correlating risks of lost evidence and faded memories”
• holding statute is not jurisdictional when statute does not mention dismissal or other language commonly associated with jurisdictional statutes
• noting that standing is not a jurisdictional requirement in the Virgin Islands courts
• noting that Superior Court must apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3), rather than dismiss a petition, when the caption of that petition fails to comply with mandatory claims-processing rule codified in 24 V.I.C. § 380
• “{T]he courts should presume that[,] when the Legislature creates a statute, it is aware of the long-standing procedures and practices of the courts.” (citations omitted)
• We begin by recognizing that before we may conclude that the Leglslature intended to make a particular statutory requirement jurisdictional, we must find that that Legisiature’s intent to do so is clear

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).