United States v. 817 N.E. 29th Drive
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:
These appeals arise out of the Government’s attempt to obtain forfeiture of two parcels of land. The claimant, Charles Howerin, resisted the forfeiture. The district court split the difference and ordered forfeiture of one of the two parcels. The parties’ appeals of that decision force us to confront two relatively uncharted areas of forfeiture law: (1) the appropriate definition of “property” under the relevant forfeiture statute, and (2) when a forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Based on our resolution of those issues, we…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Bartkus v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by93 opinions
- Cephus Bell v. Eastman Kodak CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- United States v. HeldemanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005
- United States v. SeherCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2009
- Commonwealth v. Real Property & Improvements Commonly Known as 5444 Spruce StreetSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- United States v. Michael Bikundi, Sr.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.