Legal Opinion
United States v. Marolf
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 12, 1999No. 97-56275PublishedCited by 117 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge PRO; Concurrence by Judge RYMER.
PRO, United States District Judge:
Gary Marolf appeals the denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) for return of the 1981 AMAL/MANGO 23 dual-masted, 55-foot motor-sailboat “Asmara” or its monetary equivalent. See United States v. Marolf, 973 F.Supp. 1139 (C.D.Cal.1997). We affirm the district court’s conclusion that the administrative forfeiture was constitutionally defective because of lack of notice to Marolf, and therefore hold that the administrative forfeiture is void. Marolf is thus entitled to his property…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. KubrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Baldwin County Welcome Center v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by117 opinions
- United States v. Donald Lawrence Ritchie, Heather Horner, Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Tommy Hopkins v. John SaundersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Ibrahn Ben Miranda v. Ray Castro, Warden Attorney General of the State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Angela Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles Lloyd W. Pellman, Individually Lloyd W. Pellman, in His Official CapacityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Tayler Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
112 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.