Legal Opinion
United States v. Lot Numbered One (1) of the Lavaland Annex
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided July 9, 2001No. 00-2072PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HENRY, Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises out of a civil forfeiture action brought by the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). The defendant property was purchased by Relax Motel, Inc. (RMI) in 1984. RMI, the claimant-appellant in this appeal, had its rights in the defendant property ordered forfeited by the district court. Certain lienhold interests were not ordered forfeited. RMI now argues that the district court erred in interpreting and applying the innocent owner defense under § 881(a)(7) and in rejecting its contention that the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause…
2Cases cited16 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. 141st Street Corp. ex rel. HershCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Parcel Of Real Property Known As 6109 Grubb Road, Millcreek Township Erie County, PennsylvaniaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- United States v. $80,180.00 in U.S. CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. Wagoner County Real EstateCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- United States v. WallaceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
- Harjo v. City of AlbuquerqueDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2018
- United States v. 16328 South 43rd East AvenueCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.