Citation network
AustIn Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 28, 1993
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 509 U.S. 602 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Austin V. UnitedSearch
-
it from the Clause's purview, so long as it can only be explained as serving in part to punish. See United States v. HalperSearch
-
in particular, 603 historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment. See, e. g., Peisch v. WareSearch
-
of the owner as a common-law defense to forfeiture. See, e. g., Calero-Toledo v. PearsonSearch
-
U. S. Const., Arndt. 8. 606 United States v. OneSearch
-
court felt constrained from holding the forfeiture unconstitutional. It cited this Court's decision in CaleroToledo v. PearsonSearch
-
Ibid., quoting United States v. TaxSearch
-
Lot 1500, 861 F.2d 232 , 234 (CA9 1988), cert. denied sub nom. Jaffee v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the Second Circuit over the applicability of the Eighth Amendment to in rem civil forfeitures. See United States v. CertainSearch
-
Real Property, 954 F.2d 29 , 35, 38-39, cert. denied sub nom. Levin v. UnitedSearch
-
We have had occasion to consider this Clause only once before. In Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. KelcoSearch
-
apply to a civil proceeding unless that proceeding is so punitive that it must be considered criminal under Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
U. S. 144 (1963), and United States v. WardSearch
-
against unreasonable searches and seizures applies in forfeiture proceedings, see One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 616 , 634 (1886), but that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause does not, see United States v. ZuckerSearch
-
In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), does not apply to civil forfeiture proceedings. See Lilienthal's Tobacco v. UnitedSearch
-
proceedings, but only in cases where the forfeiture could properly be characterized as remedial. See United States v. OneSearch
-
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
see generally United States v. HalperSearch
-
proceedings, but only where the forfeiture statute had made the culpability of the owner relevant, see United States v. UnitedSearch
-
see also United States v. WardSearch
-
forfeiture proceeding if it is so punitive that the proceeding must reasonably be considered criminal. See Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSearch
-
punishment. The Excessive Fines Clause limits the government's power to extract payments, whether 5 In Ingraham v. WrightSearch
-
Id., at 447. See also United States ex rel. Marcus v. HessSearch
-
forfeiture was understood at least in part as punish- 6 For this reason, the United States' reliance on Kennedy v. MendozaMartinezSearch
-
and United States v. WardSearch
-
the Court has not employed the tests articulated in MendozaMartinez and Ward. See, e. g., United States v. HalperSearch
-
undertaken without the knowledge of the master or owner, could result in forfeiture of the entire ship. See Mitchell v. TorupSearch
-
forfeiture statutes.''' Calero-Toledo, 416 U. S., at 683, quoting C. J. Hendry Co. v. MooreSearch
-
C Our cases also have recognized that statutory in rem forfeiture imposes punishment. In Peisch v. WareSearch
-
J. W Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Dobbins's Distillery v. UnitedSearch
-
Harmony v. UnitedSearch
-
Republic Nat. Bank of Miami v. UnitedSearch
-
proceedings, might have lacked in personam jurisdiction over the owner of the property. See also Harmony v. UnitedSearch
-
forfeiture, it consistently has recognized that forfeiture serves, at least in part, to punish the owner. See Peisch v. WareSearch
-
see also United States v. ParcelSearch
-
on the culpability of the owner in a way that makes them look more like punishment, not less. In United States v. UnitedSearch
-
intent to punish only those involved in drug trafficking. standing of the relevant question. Under United States v. HalperSearch
-
history in its brief in the present case, it quoted the same passage with approval in its brief in United States v. ParcelSearch
-
itself may be characterized as remedial because it removes dangerous or illegal items from society. See United States v. OneSearch
-
s attempt to extend that reasoning to conveyances used to transport illegal liquor. See One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial