Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States ruled that a forfeiture could be considered as an excessive fine, [16] the court upheld the principle of civil forfeiture generally. [7] A 1996 Supreme Court decision ruled that prosecuting a person for a crime and seizing his or her property via civil forfeiture did not constitute double jeopardy , and therefore did not violate ...
The Court's decision created a conflict with decisions in other circuits, where panels had held that pending administrative and criminal proceedings are relevant considerations in determining whether delays in forfeiture proceedings violate the Due Process Clause. The United States petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. [7]
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. [1]
Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to civil forfeiture cases. [1]
United States (1993) that the Eighth Amendment applies to federal asset forfeitures, protecting citizens from excessive fines that would include asset forfeiture. [6] In the Supreme Court's 2017 term, a petition for a case related to state-level asset forfeiture had been submitted but the Court was forced to reject it since the petitioner had ...
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the due process requirement that a state give notice to an owner before selling his property to satisfy his unpaid taxes.
Purchases in the United States by a non-resident corporation are insufficient under the minimum contacts test to establish in personam jurisdiction Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. 466 U.S. 485 (1984) Appellate courts may make finding of "actual malice" required for libel claims against public figures by the First Amendment
United States v. Harriss: 347 U.S. 612 (1954) constitutionality of The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946: Berman v. Parker: 348 U.S. 26 (1954) eminent domain, takings United States v. International Boxing Club of New York: Antitrust: 348 U.S. 236 (1955) boxing not exempt from antitrust regulation Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States ...