Legal Opinion
United States v. Ceverilo Chambers
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 13, 1999No. 97-5501PublishedCited by 104 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
We are asked to determine whether appellant’s motion for return of property filed pursuant to Rule 41(e), Fed.R.Crim. P., is moot because the government no longer possesses the property that was seized at the time of appellant’s arrest. We hold that a motion for return of property does not become moot merely because the government no longer retains the seized property. We further conclude that the District Court should have taken evidence to determine whether the government properly disposed of appellant’s property. Accordingly, we will vacate the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Robinson v. HanrahanSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. James Leroy MartinsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- United States v. MarolfCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- United States v. Premises Known as 608 Taylor Ave., Apartment 302, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Appeal of Harold MargolisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by104 opinions
- United States v. Rodriguez-AguirreCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- United States v. Esther Bein and William BeinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Filomena Peloro, AKA Filomena Delomo v. United States of America Federal Bureau of Investigation Richard W. Hill R.H. Research, Inc. Filomena PeloroCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Clymore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2001
- United States v. StevensCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.