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 ...
To further discern the justices' ideological leanings, researchers have carefully analyzed the judicial rulings of the Supreme Court—the votes and written opinions of the justices—as well as their upbringing, their political party affiliation, their speeches, their political contributions before appointment, editorials written about them at the time of their Senate confirmation, the ...
United States v. One Parcel of Prop. Located at 508 Depot St., 964 F.2d 814 (8th Cir. 1992); cert. granted, 506 U.S. 1074 (1993). Holding; 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
Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture.
Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, 116 people have served on the Court. The length of service on the Court for the 107 non-incumbent justices ranges from William O. Douglas's 36 years, 209 days to John Rutledge's 1 year, 18 days as associate justice and, separated by a period of years off the Court, his 138 days as chief justice.
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 ...
United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555, is a United States Supreme Court case regarding civil forfeiture and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Background [ edit ]
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.