Legal Opinion

United States v. One Handbag of Crocodilus Species

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided June 25, 1994No. 91-CV-2982 (DRH), 90-CV-0836 (DRH), and 92-CV-4338 (DRH)Published

1Opinion of the Court

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

HURLEY, District Judge.

NATURE OF PROCEEDING

The United States seeks forfeiture of each of the seized defendant properties listed in the three captioned actions, which total fifty-seven items. The plaintiff seeks forfeiture of these items under Section 11(e)(4)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(e)(4)(A). 1

Plaintiff contends that defendant products are subject to forfeiture because they were manufactured from hides of crocodilians designated as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and/or because the items were improperly identified…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. United States v. James Daniel Good Real PropertySupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty DollarsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. United States v. One 1978 Chevrolet Impala Vin 1l69u8s156817Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API