United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate Commonly Known as 2030 East Monroe Street
District Court, C.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, District Judge:
Civil Forfeiture.
The claimant says she is an innocent owner.
The facts say she is not an owner at all.
At bench trial, the government sought to forfeit the defendant property as being purchased with the proceeds of drug sales and for being used to facilitate drug transactions. 21 U.S.C. §§ 881(a)(6) and 881(a)(7). The claimant said she was an innocent owner as defined in §§ 881(a)(6) and (a)(7). The government argued claimant has ho standing to challenge the forfeiture or (in the alternative) claimant knew the defendant property was purchased with drug money…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Harper v. Virginia Department of TaxationSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real PropertySupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. 4492 South Livonia RoadCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- People v. Superior Court (Plascencia)California Court of Appeal · 2002
- United States v. One 1997 E35 Ford Van, VIN 1FBJS31L3VHB70844District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1999
- State v. JohnsonAlaska Supreme Court · 1998