⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Sears v. United States”

United States Court of Federal Claims · 2018-05-08 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 12-889L; 13-404L; 16-1233L (Consolidated) (Filed: May 8, 2018) ************************************ ) Rails-to-trails takings case; class action; CLAUDE SEARS, et al., ) settlement; fairness hearing; RCFC ) 23(e) Plainti
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2017-03-08 · Published · cited 15× · 132 Fed. Cl. 6; 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 483; 2017 WL 1929087
Post-trial determination of the just compensation due in a rails-to-trails case; value of the agricultural land taken for trail use; cost to reclaim; severance damages attributable to “point rows;” no preemption of Iowa statute guaranteeing access to fields otherwise landlocked by the trail OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. This post-tr
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2017-05-10 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 12-889L and No. 13-404L (Consolidated) (Filed: March 8, 2017) (As Amended upon Reconsideration: May 10, 2017) ) CLAUDE SEARS, et al., ) Post-trial determination of the just ) compensation due in a rails-to-trails case;
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2016-01-28 · Published · cited 1× · 124 Fed. Cl. 730; 2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 26; 2016 WL 369402
Rails-to-trails takings case; class action; interest rate.to be applied as part of the otherwise tentatively agreed just compensation for a subclass OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Before the court in this rails-to-trails takings case are the government’s motion for partial summary judgm
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2015-12-22 · Published · cited 1× · 124 Fed. Cl. 444; 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1705; 2015 WL 9311530
Rails-to-trails takings case; class action; withdrawal from incomplete settlement agreement; absence of mutual agreement; division of a class into subclasses; RCFC 23(c)(5) OPINION AND ORDER Charles F. Lettow, Judge, Before the court in this rails-to-trails takings case is plaintiffs
Supreme Court of the United States · 2011-02-22 · Published · cited 0× · 179 L. Ed. 2d 342; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1510; 131 S. Ct. 1524; 562 U.S. 1240; 79 U.S.L.W. 3477
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Same case below, 396 Fed. Appx. 491.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2011-02-22 · Published · cited 0× · 562 U.S. 1240
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2005-02-22 · Published · cited 0× · 543 U.S. 1136; 125 S. Ct. 1348
543 U.S. 1136 SEARSv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-7866. Supreme Court of United States. February 22, 2005. 1 C. A. 11th Cir. Reported below: 122 Fed. Appx. 986. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases
Supreme Court of the United States · 1996-03-25 · Published · cited 0× · 517 U.S. 1111
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Supreme Court of the United States · 1996-03-25 · Published · cited 0× · 517 U.S. 1111; 116 S. Ct. 1335
C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
District Court, District of Columbia · 2020-06-16 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) No. 19-cr-21 (KBJ) ) JEREMY SEARS, ) )
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2020-04-09 · Published · cited 0×
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition. Before TANG, LAWRENCE, and ATTANASIO, Appellate Military Judges _________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Jeffrey N. SEARS Staff Sergeant (E-6), U.S. Marine Corps
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022-04-26 · Published · cited 25× · 32 F.4th 569
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0082p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plain
Supreme Court of the United States · 1992-11-30 · Published · cited 0× · 506 U.S. 1002
C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Supreme Court of the United States · 1992-11-30 · Published · cited 0× · 506 U.S. 1002; 113 S. Ct. 607
C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992-07-15 · Published · cited 0× · 972 F.2d 1328; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 19197; 1992 WL 198252
972 F.2d 1328 Searsv.U.S. NO. 92-2250 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. July 15, 1992 1 Appeal From: N.D.N.Y. 2 AFFIRMED.
District Court, N.D. New York · 1992-04-16 · Published · cited 0× · 791 F. Supp. 950; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5153; 1992 WL 78053
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER MUNSON, Senior District Judge. Before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988). Petitioner William J. Sears is currently incarcerated in Holli-daysburg, Pennsylvania, having served approximately two months of his eight month sentence after pleading guilty in this district to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (1988) (“False decl
Supreme Court of the United States · 1986-10-06 · Published · cited 1× · 479 U.S. 869; 107 S. Ct. 233; 55 U.S.L.W. 3236; 93 L. Ed. 2d 159; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 4107
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013-06-18 · Published · cited 0× · 528 F. App'x 398
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Billy Joe Sears has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Sears has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record refle
District Court, S.D. Texas · 1979-08-20 · Published · cited 0× · 474 F. Supp. 988; 44 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5566; 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10309
MEMORANDUM McDONALD, District Judge. This is an action to determine the validity of a federal tax lien on the plaintiffs’ residence. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 2410. United States v. Creamer Industries, Inc., 349 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 957, 86 S.Ct. 434, 15 L.Ed.2d 361 (1965). The parties have submitted the case on the pleadings with t