United States v. Jay Michael Puig, Michael Hance, Claimant-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
1DissentBye, Circuit Judge
“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and *705afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Cent Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (citations omitted). I am therefore troubled by the government’s failure to send Mr. Hance notice of the forfeiture when, sixteen days before moving for entry of a final order of forfeiture, Mr. Puig’s attorney…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Dusenbery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Daniel Watkins Cynthia Watkins v. Terry Lundell Stephanie LundellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Archie Glasgow v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration, Larry Fox, Special Agent Timothy BrunholtzCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Menelao Orlando Estevez, Appeal of Jose Guillermo HaroCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.