Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Seizures allowed government to confiscate property from citizens who failed to pay taxes or customs duties. [9] The Supreme Court upheld these forfeiture statutes in situations where it was virtually impossible to get hold of guilty persons on the high seas while possible to get hold of their property. [7]
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It stated in clear terms that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment rules regarding search and seizure applied to state governments. [1] While this principle had been outlined in other cases, such as Mapp v.
On April 17, 2014, the State of Texas seized the YFZ Ranch, a one time Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community that housed as many as 700 people when it was raided by Texas on March 29, 2008. [34] [35] Under Texas law, authorities can seize property that was used to commit or facilitate certain criminal conduct.
The plaintiffs each had their property seized by D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Five of the plaintiffs were arrested during a Black Lives Matter protest in the Adams Morgan ...
The unalienable rights of "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness" were originally penned "Life, Liberty, and Property" by John Locke. Thomas Jefferson should have never altered Locke’s words.
Confiscation (from the Latin confiscatio "to consign to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury") is a legal form of seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law. [1]
The state's Office of Legal Affairs would be tasked with presenting the offending entities with possible remedies, such as the return of the seized lands, publicly owned land of equal present-day ...
DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [1] [2] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence.