COSTELLO

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• Cnty. of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1985)
  …g., adverse possession and laches, do not apply of their own force to Indian land title claims. See Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U. S. 129, 137-138 (1922); United [*241] States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District, 236 F. 2d 321, 334 (CA9 1956), cert. denied, 352 U. S. 988 (1957). Representative Morris, the sponsor of the proviso, stated: “As it is now, the Indians, as we know, are wards of the Government and, therefore, the statute of limitations does not run against them as it does in the ordinary case. This [prov…
• United States v. Allied Stevedoring Corp., 241 F.2d 925 (2d Cir. 1957)
  …are filing herewith an order denying it. We refuse to delay doing so, because Potter has not yet begun to serve his sentence of a year and the Supreme Court may well have decided the question now before it on certiorari in Costello v. United States, 352 U.S. 988, 77 S.Ct. 388, 1 L.Ed.2d 367, before Ward and Bowers have served out a year’s sentence which in any event they must do. However, our mandate will be understood to give leave to the District Court to reduce the sentences of Ward and Bowers in accor…
• United States v. The State OF Fla. & Gulf Power Co., 482 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1973)
  …r time. Not only can laches not be applied as a defense against the United States, but, even if it could, this is not the case for laches. Mount Vernon Mortg. Corp. v. United States by Atty. Gen., 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 429, 236 F. 2d 724, cert. den. 352 U.S. 988, 77 S.Ct. 386, 1 L.Ed.2d 367 (1957); Engel v. United States, 6th Cir. 1958, 258 F. 2d 50. See also, United States v. Silliman, 3rd Cir. 1948, 167 F. 2d 607, cert. den. 335 U.S. 825, 69 S.Ct. 48, 93 L.Ed. 379 (1948).10 This court then finds that the…