Legal Opinion

United States v. Lazarenko

District Court, N.D. California

Decided August 22, 2008No. C 00-00284 CRBPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

This case compels the Court to delve into a complex and easily-misunderstood area of the law: the protection of third party rights in criminal forfeiture. In their motion for summary judgment, claimant Eurofed contends that a third party may use the “ancillary proceeding” established by 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) to raise any argument whatsoever, and may thereby relitigate the forfeitability of the property seized. Contrarily, the government argues in its motion for summary judgment that a third party is limited in an ancillary proceeding to…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Chaim v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2010
  2. United States v. LazarenkoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2008
  3. United States v. LazarenkoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
  4. United States v. YaoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API