Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fell v. Armour

District Court, M.D. Tennessee

Decided November 27, 1972No. Civ. A. 6367Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGray, Chief District Judge

I concur in the Court’s conclusion that the Act in question violates the Constitution of the United States because the post-seizure procedures prescribed by the Act fail to meet the standards of the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe, however, that the pre-seizure provisions of the Act are also constitutionally impermissible, and I must, therefore, respectfully dissent from the conclusion that due process protections do not apply to such provisions.

Specifically, I believe that the Constitution prohibits the warrantless seizure, not incident to an arrest, of a vehicle and requires provisions for…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. United States v. United States Coin & CurrencySupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. The PalmyraSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
  5. Dobbins's Distillery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878

4 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