Legal Opinion

United States v. One Hundred Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Dollars, Etc. ($119,980.00)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided July 9, 1982No. 81-5587PublishedCited by 25 opinions

Non-Argument Calendar.

1Opinion of the Court

GODBOLD, Chief Judge:

The United States filed a forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C.A. § 881(a)(6) against $119,980 seized from Arnold and Morford. Arnold and Morford contested the forfeiture. The government and the two claimants entered into a stipulation of settlement whereby Customs would retain one half of the funds, $59,990, as payment of a penalty and the other half would be returned to claimants. The district court approved the settlement and implemented its terms by entering this order on May 31, 1980:

ORDER

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon the above Stipulation of Settlement and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

Southern Methodist University Ass'n v. Wynne & JaffeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
United States v. One DouglasCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981

3Cited by25 opinions

Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri ProductsHawaii Supreme Court · 1997
Solaroll Shade and Shutter Corp., Inc. v. Bio-Energy Systems, Inc., Broward Solar Center, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
Tammy Burke, Royal Insurance Company, Linda Burke Daniels, Plaintiff-Third-Party v. John Smith, Heyl Truck Lines, Inc., Defendants-Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
United States v. One Toshiba Color Television Two Answering MacHines One Health Tech Computer Reginald McGlory in No. 98-3578 (Pursuant to Rule 12(a), f.r.a.p.) (d.c. Civ. No. 90-Cv-00138) United States of America v. Assorted Jewelry Reginald McGlory in No. 98-3579 (Pursuant to Rule 12(a), f.r.a.p.) (d.c. Civ. No. 90-Cv-00370)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
Delay v. GordonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007

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