Citation network
United States Vs. Ursery
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 17, 1996
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
-
U.S. 267 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus United States V. UrserySearch
-
his property for that same offense in a separate civil proceeding. The courts reasoned in part that United States v. HalperSearch
-
U. S. 435 , and Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
not apply to such forfeitures because they do not impose punishment, see, e. g., Various Items of Personal Property v. UnitedSearch
-
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 409 U. S. 232, 235-236 (per curiam). In its most recent case, United States v. OneSearch
-
personam civil penalties such as fines, and does not constitute a punishment for double jeopardy purposes. See Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 386 , 392. The Courts of Appeals misread Halper, Austin, and Department of Revenue of Mont. v. KurthSearch
-
that both are tied to criminal activity is insufficient in itself to render them punitive. See, e. g., United States v. WardSearch
-
F.3d 568 (1995). The court based its conclusion in part upon its belief that our decisions in United States v. HalperSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 435 (1989), and Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 688 , 696 (1993), citing North Carolina v. PearceSearch
-
Witte v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 515 U. S. 389 , 396 (1995) (emphasis deleted), quoting Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
cf. Calero-Toledo v. PearsonSearch
-
the relationship between the Double Jeopardy Clause and civil forfeiture was Various Items of Personal Property v. UnitedSearch
-
question the constitutionality of forfeiture statutes thought constitutional for over a century. See United States v. CurtissWrightSearch
-
consider another double jeopardy case involving a civil forfeiture for 40 years. Then, in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
under the Double Jeopardy Clause, we again affirmed the rule of Various Items. In 277 United States v. OneSearch
-
Ibid., citing Calero-Toledo v. PearsonSearch
-
U. S., at 365, quoting United States v. WardSearch
-
Firearms, supra, at 366, quoting Rex Trailer Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
civil penalties such as fines, and does not constitute a punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
Various Items. According to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, through our decisions in United States v. HalperSearch
-
U. S. 435 (1989), Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 509 U. S. 602 (1993), and Department of Revenue of Mont. v. KurthSearch
-
U. S., at 622 (citation omitted). In Department of Revenue of Mont. v. KurthSearch
-
we have balanced the size of a particular civil penalty against the Government's harm. See, e. g., Rex Trailer Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment.''' Post, at 306, quoting United States v. HalperSearch
-
by JUSTICE STEVENS in Halper would supplant, not mimic, see post, at 306, the rule of United States v. OneSearch
-
Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U. S. 354 (1984), and One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
at 608, n. 4. And in Austin we expressly recognized and approved our decisions in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 409 U. S. 232 (1972), and United States v. OneSearch
-
clearly that it intended a civil, not a criminal sanction.''' 89 Firearms, supra, at 363, quoting Helvering v. MitchellSearch
-
their property and ensures that they will not permit that property to be used for illegal purposes. See Bennis v. MichiganSearch
-
CaleroToledo, 416 U. S., at 677-678. We recently reaffirmed this conclusion in Bennis v. MichiganSearch
-
JUSTICE KENNEDY, concurring. I join the Court's opinion and add these further observations. In Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
a)(7) at issue here as punitive. In Libretti v. UnitedSearch
-
Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. LydonSearch
-
Jones v. ThomasSearch
-
Although there is language in our cases to the contrary, see One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
is not punishment of the wrongdoer for his criminal offense. We made this clear in Various Items of Personal Property v. UnitedSearch
-
It is the owner who feels the pain and receives the stigma of the forfeiture, not the property. See United States v. UnitedSearch
-
the property was used in a crime, but this does not make forfeiture a punishment for those offenses. See United States v. OneSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial