green
Positive treatment
32.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Greaves
See United States v. Pedrazoli, 45 M.J. 567 (A.F.Ct.Crim.App.1997) (Pearson, S.J., concurring in the result) (by failing to object to application of new sentencing rules as explained by the military judge, accused knowingly and intelligently waived application of ex post facto doctrine); see also United States v. Gilcrist, 106 F.3d 297 (9th Cir.1997) (holding accused waived ex post facto issue by agreeing to use 1994 sentencing manual); but see United States v. Smitherman, 956 F.2d 1131 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (holding accused waived (forfeited) ex post facto objection to sentence and sen…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tindall v. United States
Int’l, Inc., et. al v. United States, 535 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United States
Int’l, Inc., et. al v. United States, 535 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Orr v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Castillo v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The Portland Mint v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fishermen's Finest, Inc. v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Silver State Land LLC v. United States
Cir. 1995); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Orr v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beres v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Menendez v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lucier v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. 20 denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Flying S. Land Company v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002); and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Klamath Irrigation v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Howell v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Phipps v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
El v. United States
Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 1077 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131,1134 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aziz El ex rel. Kamal-Jalal v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheryl Taylor v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vasko v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) (citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992))), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1139 , 125 S.Ct. 2963 , 162 L.Ed.2d 887 (2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Keehn v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kortlander v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ingram v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Longnecker Property v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beres v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied 535 U.S. 1077 , 122 S.Ct. 1960 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1021 (2002) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. United States
It is axiomatic that “[w]ithout undisputed ownership of ... property at the time of [a] taking[ ], the [Plaintiffs] cannot maintain a suit alleging that the Government took their property without just compensation.” Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 20-21 , 78 S.Ct. 1039 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1958)); see also Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. United States
Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d at 1372 (quoting Wyatt v. United States, 271 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2001) and citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flowers v. United States
See, e.g., Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1328 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“For any Fifth Amendment takings claim, the complaining party must show it owned a distinct property interest at the time it was allegedly taken____”); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“Without undisputed ownership of the ... property at the time of the takings, [plaintiff] cannot maintain a suit alleging that the Government took [his] property without just compensation.”); Consol.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bailey v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134-35 (Fed.Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People of Bikini v. United States
“It is axiomatic that only persons with a valid property interest at the time of the taking are entitled to compensation.” Wyatt, 271 F.3d at 1096 (citing, inter alia, Almota Farmers Elevator Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470, 473-74 [, 93 S.Ct. 791 , 35 L.Ed.2d 1 ] (1973); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992))....
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John v. United States
“It is axiomatic that only persons with a valid property interest at the time of the taking are entitled to compensation.” Wyatt [v. U.S.], 271 F.3d [1090] at 1096 [(Fed.Cir.2001)] (citing, inter alia, Almota Farmers Elevator Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470, 473-74 , 93 S.Ct. 791 , 35 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992))____ Second, after having identified a valid property interest, the court must determine whether the governmental action at issue amounted to a compensable taking of that property interest.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tommaseo v. United States
See United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 20-21 , 78 S.Ct. 1039 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1958) (holding that a plaintiff seeking just compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment must be the owner of the property at the time of the taking); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“Without undisputed ownership of the [] property [at issue] at the time of the takings, [plaintiffs] cannot maintain a suit alleging that the Government took their property without just compensation.” (citing Dow, 357 U.S. at 20-21 , 78 S.Ct. 1039 )); Lacey v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 551 , 595 F…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
System Fuels, Inc. v. United States
Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1135 (Fed.Cir.1992); Smith v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 430, 436 (1993); Illinois v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 399, 410 (1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Norman v. United States
Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Pelagic Fishing Company, L.P. v. United States
“It is axiomatic that only persons with a valid property interest at the time of the taking are entitled to compensation.” Wyatt, 271 F.3d at 1096 (citing, inter alia, Almota Farmers Elevator Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470, 473-74 , 93 S.Ct. 791 , 35 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wyatt v. United States
Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470, 473-74 , 93 S.Ct. 791 , 35 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Pro-Eco, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Jay County, Indiana, 57 F.3d 505, 509 (7th Cir.1995); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anne D. Wyatt v. United States
Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470, 473-74 (1973); Pro-Eco, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Jay County, Indiana, 57 F.3d 505, 509 (7th Cir. 1995); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patrick Roedler, Thomas McDonough Jeannie Strobel, Richard Palmer, Noreen Hoft, and Hj Company v. Department of Energy, Secretary of the Treasury, and United States v. Northern States Power Company
The government argues that the plaintiffs did not have an "ownership interest" in the money paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund, citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roedler v. Department of Energy
The government argues that the plaintiffs did not have an “ownership interest” in the money paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund, citing Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992) for the principle that to maintain a takings claim the plaintiff must be the owner of the property at the time of the taking.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Halliburton Co. v. United States
The court in Goewey noted: “Transfer of a claim that is barred by the statute of limitations would not serve [the interests of justice].” See also Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1136 (Fed.Cir.1992) (Claims Court properly refused to transfer tort claims to district court when claims time-barred in district court); Hadera v. INS, 136 F.3d 1338, 1341 (D.C.Cir.1998) (transfer of case to Fourth Circuit was not appropriate when petition for review would have been untimely even if properly filed in the Fourth Circuit); Macrotel Int’l Corp. v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. 98, 100 (1995); We…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Darrell G. Hafen v. United States
United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 20 (1958); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carson Harbor Village Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, Dba Carson Harbor Village Mobile Home Park v. City of Carson, a Municipal Corporation
See United States Olympic Comm. v. Intelicense Corp., S.A, 737 F.2d 263, 267-68 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 982 , 105 S.Ct. 387 , 83 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984) (enactment of statute could not effect a taking because property owner did not own the property when the statute became law); see also United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 20-21 , 78 S.Ct. 1039 , 1043 — 44, 2 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1958); Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas Scott Wilson
For example, in United States v. Smitherman, 956 F.2d 1131, 1131 (11th Cir.1992), the district court followed the Jones procedure.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bailey v. United States
See Bailey, 78 Fed.Cl. at 259, 268-69 (discussing United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 18-23 , 78 S.Ct. 1039 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1958), Wyatt, 271 F.3d at 1096 , and Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134-35 (Fed.Cir.1992)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Palm Beach Isles Associates v. United States
See Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17, 20-21 , 78 S.Ct. 1039 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1958); Lacey v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 551 , 595 F.2d 614, 619 (1979)); Yachts America, Inc. v. United States, 779 F.2d 656, 662 (Fed.Cir.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 832 , 107 S.Ct. 122 , 93 L.Ed.2d 68 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Greenbrier (Lake County Trust Co. No. 1391) v. United States
See Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131, 1135 (Fed.Cir.1992); Aulston v. United States, 823 F.2d 510, 512 (Fed.Cir.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Donald T. SMITHERMAN, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Donald T. SMITHERMAN, Defendant-Appellant
91-7331.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 31, 1992.
W. Lloyd Copeland, Claek, Deen & Copeland, Mobile, Ala., for defendant-appellant., Richard Moore, U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Tjoflat, Hatchett, Birch.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue in this case is whether the appellant may raise under the plain error doctrine a sentencing error which was not objected to at the time of sentencing.
At sentencing, the district court followed to the letter the procedure mandated by this court in United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 275, 112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), and the appellant did not object to the sentence or the sentencing process on the basis of an ex-post facto violation. He seeks to raise that claim on appeal. We hold that the ex-post facto claim has been waived. To hold otherwise would nullify our recent holding in Jones.
Accordingly, the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.