United States v. Jack L. Lewis, United States of Am. v. James L. Willoz, 478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Jack L. Lewis, United States of Am. v. James L. Willoz, 478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2015–2025 · 2 courts · …since the district court was empowered to set aside the conviction, it could also correct the unlawful result of the conviction and require the repayment of the money collected as fines. at p. 836 ✓
70 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Billups-Dryer (illappct, 2025-09-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) cited 1× in this case · 38 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) People v. Billups-Dryer
Ill. App. Ct. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
since the district court was empowered to set aside the conviction, it could also correct the unlawful result of the conviction and require the repayment of the money collected as fines.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) People v. Nelson
Colo. · 2015 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
since the district court was empowered to set aside the conviction, it could also correct the unlawful result of the conviction and require the repayment of the money collected as fines.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Price (2×)
D.D.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir. 1973) (after unconstitutional conviction was set aside, district court could “correct the unlawful result of the conviction and require the repayment of the money collected as fines . . . without requiring the bringing of another action”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. St Cyr (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.D.C. · 2025 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Pasha v. United States, 484 F.2d 630, 631 (7th Cir. 1973); DeCecco v. United States, 485 F.2d 372, 373 (1st Cir. 1973); United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir. 1973); Neely v. United States, 546 F.2d 1059, 1064 (3d Cir. 1976); United States v. Hansen, 906 F. Supp. 688, 697 (D.D.C. 1995).12 It matters not that St Cyr seeks compensation in these proceedings rather than in a separate civil action.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress Local 2334
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · confidence medium
Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 98-99 (1993), deals with whether a court must apply a judicial decision retroactively; Wyatt v. Cole, 994 F.2d at 1115 , held that defendants can, in fact, rely in good faith on a statute later declared unconstitutional; United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir. 1973), discusses whether a criminal defendant is entitled to a return of fines paid pursuant to a guilty plea to a statute subsequently determined to be unconstitutional; United States v. Venneri, 782 F. Supp. 1091, 1093 (D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association
E.D. Cal. · 2019 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 808 (2013) (ordering the United States to refund taxes it 28 collected in reliance on the Defense of Marriage Act); United 1 States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir. 1973) (stating that fines collected under a statute that is subsequently determined 2 to be unconstitutional must be repaid when suit is brought to recover them).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nelson (2×)
Colo. · 2015 · confidence medium
See United States v. Hayes, 385 F.3d 1226 , 1229–30 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that, where the defendant’s conviction was reversed on collateral review, the government must return amounts paid as special assessments and costs, though it need not reimburse for restitution disbursed after the conviction became final); Telink, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 47 (9th Cir. 1994) (“If [the defendants] prevail in setting aside their convictions, the wrongly paid fines would be automatically refunded, without requiring a civil action . . . .”); United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nelson (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Colo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See, eg., Telink, 24 F.3d at 47 . (noting that if the defendants prevail in setting aside their convictions, then "the wrongly paid fines would be automatically refunded, without requiring a civil action"); Lewis, 478 F.2d at 886 (discerning no reason why a person who has paid a fine pursuant to an unconstitutional statute should be required to resort to a multiplicity of actions in order to obtain reimbursement of money to which he is entitled, and noting that the district court was empowered to require the repayment of the fines); Cooper v. Gordon, 389 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980) (…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. H. Wayne Hayes, Jr.
9th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Telink, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 42, 46-47 (9th Cir.1994). 2 A separate civil action is not required because “the recovery of wrongly paid fines is ‘incident to the vacating and setting aside’ of the wrongful conviction.” Id. (quoting United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir.1973).) 3 If a conviction is vacated, Telink holds that “wrongly paid fines would be automatically refunded, without requiring a civil action and without regard to the limitations period for civil actions.” Telink, 24 F.3d at 47 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sawyer (2×)
D. Mass. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Mandel, 862 F.2d at 1074-75 (vacating a federal mail fraud conviction based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision); Loschiavo, 531 F.2d at 666-67 (vacating a federal bribery conviction based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision); United States v. Travers, 514 F.2d 1171, 1175-76 (2nd Cir.1974) (vacating a federal mail fraud conviction based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision); DeCecco v. United States, 485 F.2d 372, 373 (1st Cir.1973) (vacating a federal tax conviction based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision); United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir.1973) (vacating a …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hansen
D.D.C. · 1995 · confidence medium
E.g., Keane, 852 F.2d at 204 ; DeCecco v. United States, 485 F.2d 372, 373 (1st Cir.1973); Pasha v. United States, 484 F.2d 630, 631-33 (7th Cir.1973); United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Telink, Inc. Burnup & Sims, Inc. v. United States of America, County of Fresno, County of San Diego, Intervenors-Appellees (2×)
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir.1973). 8 If Telink and Bumup prevail in setting aside their convictions, the wrongly paid fines would be automatically refunded, without requiring a civil action and without regard to the limitations period for civil actions. 9 In concluding that the coram nobis petition will not be subject to an arbitrary limitations period, we instead adopt a “flexible, equitable time limitation” based on laches.
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Parker (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Utah Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Affirming on appeal, the Fifth Circuit stated: "Just as the imposition of a fine is an incident of a criminal conviction, so is the direction for repayment an incident to the vacating and setting aside of the conviction." Lewis, 478 F.2d at 836 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Paul H. \Bud\" Holmes" (2×)
5th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir.1973) (holding one seeking recovery of fine need not rely on the Tucker Act), affirming 342 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.La.1972) (ordering fines returned without interest after a coram nobis proceeding); see abo United States v. Bursey, 515 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.1975) (recognizing suit under Tucker Act for recovery of appearance bond deposited with court); id. at 1233-34 (citing cases allowing the recovery of fines improperly imposed); United States v. Summa, 362 F.Supp. 1177 (D.Conn.1972) (recognizing suit to recover fines under the Tucker Act and al…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Sams Appeal of Victor Carlucci
3rd Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
See Pasha, 484 F.2d at 633 ; DeCecco, 485 F.2d at 373-74 ; Summa, 362 F.Supp. at 1179; United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir. 1973). 39 .
cited Cited "see" State v. Stein
Alaska Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lewis, 342 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.La.1972), aff'd, 478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir.1973); Constantine, 739 P.2d at 190 .
cited Cited "see" John Dececco, Sr. v. United States
1st Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lewis, 342 F.Supp. 833, 836 (E.D.La.1972), aff’d, 478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. One (1) Douglas A-26B Aircraft
11th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Springfield, supra. 9 These cases are controlling on the issue of whether appellant could have filed a counterclaim under the Tucker Act in this action. 10 Although we find that appellant could have asserted a counterclaim had it been aware of the condition of its aircraft at the time the forfeiture proceedings were litigated, we must deny appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion for another reason.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. One Douglas
11th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Lewis, 478 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Springfield, supra. 9 These cases are controlling on the issue of whether appellant could have filed a counterclaim under the Tucker Act in this action. 10 9 Although we find that appellant could have asserted a counterclaim had it been aware of the condition of its aircraft at the time the forfeiture proceedings were litigated, we must deny appellant's Rule 60(b) motion for another reason.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jack L. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellee; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James L. WILLOZ, Defendant-Appellee
72-2524 and 72-2740.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 29, 1973.
478 F.2d 835
Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Mary Williams Cazalas, John R. Schupp, Asst. U. S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant., Virgil Wheeler, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Jones, Godbold, In-Graham.
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published
JONES, Circuit Judge.

The narrow question on this appeal is whether the amounts paid ‘as fines which were imposed after pleas of guilty to criminal charges made pursuant to a statute which was subsequently determined, retroactively, to be unconstitutional, may be recovered in a coram nobis proceeding attacking the validity of the convictions. The facts of the case, the decision of the district court-and the reasons for its decision are set forth in its opinion. United States v. Lewis, E.D.La. (1972), 342 F.Supp. 833.

This cause would require less in the way of adjudication if the party holding funds exacted under an unconstitutional statute was not an entity which could and does assert sovereignty as justification for its refusal to restore such funds to them from whom they were received.

We are in accord with the district court’s decision and with the basis for its decision. It is appropriate, however, that there be some further discussion of the matters which the Government has stressed on appeal.

The Government concedes, although it has little choice to do otherwise, that the judgments of the district court must be affirmed insofar as they set aside the convictions of Lewis and Willoz. The Government asserts that, although the statute under which the fines were imposed were in violation of the Constitution, nevertheless if there is to be any recovery, which the Government does not concede, it must be by a separate action brought under the Tucker Act. 28 U.S. C.A. § 1346(a). This statute is one which confers a jurisdiction upon the district courts. It is not procedural. We can see no reason why a person who has paid a fine pursuant to an unconstitutional statute should be required to resort to a multiplicity of actions in order to obtain reimbursement of money to which he is entitled. Since the district court was empowered to set aside the conviction, it could also correct the unlawful result of the conviction and require the repayment of the money collected as fines. This it could do without requiring the bringing of another action. The Ninth Circuit, in a proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, has required the repayment of a fine illegally collected. Smith v. United States, 9th Cir. (1961), 287 F.2d 270, cert. denied, 366 U.S. 946, 81 S.Ct. 1676, 6 L.Ed.2d 856.

The Government says that the appellants cannot recover in any event or by any existing remedial procedure because there is no express statutory authority for such relief. Just as the imposition of a fine is an incident of a criminal conviction, so is the direction for repayment an incident to the vacating and setting aside of the conviction.

The judgments of the district court are, in all things,

Affirmed.