Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The office of United States Marshal was created by the First Congress. President George Washington signed the Judiciary Act into law on September 24, 1789. [8] The Act provided that a United States Marshal's primary function was to execute all lawful warrants issued to him under the authority of the United States.
In the United States, civil forfeiture (also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture) [1] is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from people who are suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing.
Loyalist property forfeiture Martin v. Hunter's Lessee: 14 U.S. 304 (1816) Loyalist property forfeiture, Supreme Court review of state court judgments Laidlaw v. Organ: 15 U.S. 178 (1817) the rule of caveat emptor in a commodity delivery contract: Craig v. Radford: 16 U.S. 594 (1818) Jay Treaty protection of alien enemy defeasible estate ...
28 U.S.C. § 561 establishes the United States Marshals Service, abbreviated USMS, as a bureau of the U.S. Department of Justice and places a director at its helm. The director – like any other high-ranking executive branch officer – is directly appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and serves under the authority and control of the United States Attorney ...
Bronston v. United States: 409 U.S. 352 (1973) Literally truthful statements under oath cannot be prosecuted as perjury even if intent was to mislead questioner United States v. Dionisio: 410 U.S. 1 (1973) Compelled production of voice samples and the Fourth and Fifth Amendment. United States v. Mara aka Marasovich: 410 U.S. 19 (1973)
The United States government plans to sell off a multimillion-dollar L.A. mansion forfeited by the family of a former Armenian politician who was accused of using the property to launder bribes.
In law, in rem jurisdiction (Law Latin for "power about or against 'the thing'" [1]) is a legal term referring to the power a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) or a "status" against a person over whom the court does not have in personam jurisdiction.
Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024), is a case decided by Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing of post-seizure probable cause hearings under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. [1] The Court has been asked to determine whether the "speedy trial" test from Barker v. Wingo or the balancing test from Mathews v.