Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments.
Indiana the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involves the use of civil asset forfeiture to seize a $42,000 vehicle under state law in addition to the imposition of a $1,200 fine for drug trafficking charges, house arrest ...
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]
Indiana applied Excessive Fines Clause to the states For many years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the “Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause” applies to the states as well as to the federal ...
Forfeiture under §§881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause. Court membership; Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas
The United States Supreme Court has upheld the principle of civil asset forfeiture at the federal level. [10] [27] The Court ruled in Austin v. United States (1993) that such civil forfeiture, treated as punitive actions, are subject to the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in Timbs v.
United States v. Bajakajian (1998) is the first and only case in which the Supreme Court has declared a criminal fine constitutionally excessive. There, the government sought the forfeiture of $357,144 from Hosep Krikor Bajakajian solely as a penalty for not declaring that amount to Customs when leaving the country.
The trial court then awarded Kelco treble damages and attorney's fees on the anti-trust claim, but awarded $6,066,082.74 on the alternative state tort claim, so further action proceeded on the basis of the higher award. BFI appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and raised the issue of the excessive fines clause. The ...