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 ...
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 ]
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
The Supreme Court stated the law on the matter: under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, states ordinarily may not seize real property (real estate) before providing notice and a ...
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 ...
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.
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. 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 ]