United States v. Joseph Norman Honeycutt, United States of Am. v. Clifford David Carlyle, 850 F.2d 690 (4th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Joseph Norman Honeycutt, United States of Am. v. Clifford David Carlyle, 850 F.2d 690 (4th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a majority of federal courts have recognized that it is in the interest of justice to transfer a case rather than dismiss when refiling in the proper court would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.”
55 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carol Ann Salmon v. Yorktown Systems Group LLC (alnd, 2026-03-06) · Strongest negative: Agbanc, Ltd. v. United States (azd, 1988-11-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Agbanc, Ltd. v. United States
D. Ariz. · 1988 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see, Spriggs, 660 F.Supp. 789 (E.D.Va.1987), aff'd without op. 850 F.2d 690 (4th Cir.1988); Hersch v. United States, 685 F.Supp. 325 (E.D.N.Y.1988); Bowen v. United States, 84 B.R. 214 (Bankr.D.Ut.1988); and United States v.H&L Schwartz, Inc., (Bond v. U.S.) No. 84-5497 JGD (C.D.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Carol Ann Salmon v. Yorktown Systems Group LLC
N.D. Ala. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a majority of federal courts have recognized that it is in the interest of justice to transfer a case rather than dismiss when refiling in the proper court would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Joseph Norman Honeycutt, United States of America v. Clifford David Carlyle
87-5188.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Jun 24, 1988.
850 F.2d 690
Unpublished

850 F.2d 690
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joseph Norman HONEYCUTT, Defendant-Appellants.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Clifford David CARLYLE, Defendant-Appellants.

Nos. 87-5188, 87-5181.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

June 24, 1988.

Lionel S. Lofton (Parks N. Small, on brief), for appellants.

J. Robert Haley, Assistant United States Attorney (Vinton D. Lide, United States Attorney, on brief), for appellee.

Before K.K. HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and ROBERT R. MERHIGE, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

1

Joseph Norman Honeycutt and Clifford David Carlyle appeal the decision of the district court denying their motion to suppress evidence seized from the automobile in which they were stopped on March 5, 1987. A review of the record, the briefs, and oral argument reveals that the thorough, well-reasoned opinion of the district court is without error. We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Honeycutt, CR-87-00074 (D.S.C. May 28, 1988).

2

AFFIRMED.