Legal Opinion

United States v. Ursery

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 24, 1996No. 95-345PublishedCited by 1,087 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist

In separate cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the Government from both punishing a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting his property for that same offense in a separate civil proceeding. We consolidated those cases for our review, and now reverse. These civil forfeitures (and civil forfeitures generally), we hold, do *271not constitute “punishment” for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

I

No. 95-345: Michigan Police found marijuana growing…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Austin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

3Cited by1,087 opinions

  1. Kansas v. HendricksSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Hudson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. United States v. BajakajianSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. State v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1998

1,082 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API