Legal Opinion

Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided March 12, 1990No. 89-1103PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e), appellants Blinder, Robinson & Company, Inc. (“Blinder, Robinson & Company”) and Meyer Blinder filed an action for the return of property in which they alleged that various business records had been seized illegally by federal agents. The district court denied their request for relief. We dismiss the appeal as to appellant Meyer Blinder for lack of jurisdiction. We remand the case to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether appellant Blinder, Robinson & Company is able to satisfy the equitable…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. DiBella v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. United States v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Voss v. BergsgaardCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
  4. Joseph W. Richey and Wife, Blanche Richey v. Jack E. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  5. Jim Floyd v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Search of Premises Known as 6455 South Yosemite, Englewood, Colorado. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
  2. In Re Southeastern Equipment Co. Search WarrantDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1990
  3. Andersen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  4. Andersen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API