Legal Opinion
United States v. Assorted Firearms
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided April 29, 2002No. Civ. AMD 01-3701PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
DAVIS, District Judge.
This is a forfeiture action instituted by the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3)(A). The sole claimant is the alleged owner of the firearms, John Mow-att. Now pending are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Discovery has been completed and no hearing is needed. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons explained below, summary judgment shall be granted in favor of the United States.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- N. Brown FELTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRAVES-HUMPHREYS COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1987
- Norris Shealy v. Honorable William L. Winston Honorable Thomas R. Monroe, Honorable Joseph C. GwaltneyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. Ninety-Three (93) Firearms, and Assorted Firearm Parts and Ammunition, Larry Z. Short, Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. One Astra 2000 Cub Pistol, Serial Number 936016, One Taurus 85 Ultralite Revolver, Serial Number 73522 and Seventy-one (71) Rounds of AmmunitionDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2019