U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2023

Larry Wilkins v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 8, 2023

66 F.4th 1223 (Federal Reporter, Fourth Series)

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Shelton v. City of Locust Grove, Oklahoma (10th Cir. 2025)
THOMAS HARGROVE v. STATE OF FLORIDA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LARRY STEVEN WILKINS; JANE No. 20-35745 B. STANTON,

D.C. No. 9:18-cv- Plaintiffs-Appellants, 00147-DLC v.

ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed May 8, 2023

Before: EBEL, * BRESS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 2 WILKINS V. UNITED STATES

SUMMARY ** Quiet Title Act

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court in Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870, 871 (2023) (holding that the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year time limitation, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g), is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, and reversing a decision of the Ninth Circuit, published at 13 F.4th 791 (9th Cir. 2021)), the panel remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

COUNSEL

Jeffrey W. McCoy (argued), Pacific Legal Foundation, Highlands Ranch, Colorado; Damien M. Schiff and Ethan Blevins, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California; James M. Manley, Pacific Legal Foundation, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Kevin W. McArdle (argued), Mark Steger Smith, John M. Newman, and John L. Smeltzer, Attorneys; Jean E.

Williams, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice; Washington, D.C.; Babak Rastgoufard, Attorney; Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture; Washington, D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee.

WILKINS V. UNITED STATES 3

ORDER

The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment in this case and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings. See Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870, 881 (2023). We remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

The copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

REMANDED.

* The Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.