Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge ...
Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler .
A confiscation order is a court order made in the Crown Court requiring a convicted defendant to pay a specified amount of money to the state by a specified date. Secondly, there are cash forfeiture proceedings, which take place (in England and Wales) in a magistrates' court with a right of appeal to the Crown Court , having been brought by ...
Over the past four years, Kansas law enforcement seized $23.1 million in cash and property allegedly linked to criminal activity. Most of the time, owners never tried to take it back.
A court order is an official proclamation by a judge (or panel of judges) that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing, a trial, an appeal or other court proceedings. [1] Such ruling requires or authorizes the carrying out of certain steps by one or more parties to a case.
The writ of attachment is issued in order to satisfy a judgment issued by the court. A prejudgment writ of attachment may be ordered in a legal action where a plaintiff has demonstrated meritorious allegations, fraud in the underlying action, or that defendant may attempt to dispose of or hide assets from the court.
Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri. An unusual in rem case heard by the Supreme Court where the named object was not the seized property but the warrant under which it was seized. Since all the government agents involved were indisputably acting within the law as it stood, the only way for the petitioner ...
The court ruled that it is necessary for the government to be able to seize property for its uses, such as creating infrastructure, which ultimately are determined by the legislature and not the judiciary. This essentially gives the government ultimate ownership over all property, because it is not viable for the government to hold out against ...