Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. $8,440,190.00 in U.S. Currency

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Decided June 17, 2013No. 11-1611Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHoward, Circuit Judge

I concur in the majority’s opinion, except for its conclusion that Van Bommel demonstrated constitutional standing to contest the forfeiture of the $10,000 found on his person. Van Bommel did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a colorable interest in that money; he therefore lacks standing to contest its forfeiture.

As the majority explains, there is every reason to believe that Van Bommel was paid $10,000 to transport the bales of currency that he later threw into the sea. Thus, at one point Van Bommel had a colorable claim of ownership of that $10,000. But he signed a…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Mullins v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
  4. Mary Z. Asseo, Etc. v. Pan American Grain Company, Inc., and Pan American Grain Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1986
  5. United States v. $92,203.00 in United States CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008

7 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