Citation network
United States Vs. Bajakajian
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 04, 1997
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. 321 (1997) October Term, 1997 Syllabus United States V. BajakajianSearch
-
limits the Government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense. Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
is that judgments about the appropriate punishment belong in the first instance to the legislature. See, e. g., Solem v. HelmSearch
-
property itself. See, e. g., Harford v. UnitedSearch
-
of reimbursing the Government for the losses accruing from evasion of customs duties. See, e. g., Stockwell v. UnitedSearch
-
value of the property must be proportional to the culpability of the owner. Id., at 336 (citing United States v. RealSearch
-
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. KelcoSearch
-
the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, 'as punishment for some offense.''' Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
as much.) This is sufficient to bring the forfeiture within the purview of the Excessive Fines Clause. See Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Dobbins's Distillery v. UnitedSearch
-
rather than against the offender himself.5 See, e. g., Various Items of Personal Property v. UnitedSearch
-
indeed, the owner of forfeited property could be entirely innocent of any crime. See, e. g., Origet v. UnitedSearch
-
Calero-Toledo v. PearsonSearch
-
Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
see also United States v. UrserySearch
-
punishment even in part, regardless of whether the proceeding is styled in rem or in personam. See Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief for United States 20 (quoting United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Forty-Five Thousand, One Hundred Thirty-Nine Dollars, 18 F.3d 73 , 75 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Etim v. UnitedSearch
-
is of recent vintage, see Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
see, e. g., J. W Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
forfeitures have historically been limited to the property actually used to commit an offense and no more. See Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish. See Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
Alexander v. UnitedSearch
-
facilitates the transportation of goods concealed to avoid taxes. See, e. g., J. W Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the Clause was taken verbatim from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. See Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. KelcoSearch
-
about the appropriate punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature. See, e. g., Solem v. HelmSearch
-
see also Gore v. UnitedSearch
-
of gross disproportionality articulated in our Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause precedents. See, e. g., Solem v. HelmSearch
-
the District Court found, re- siveness inquiry, of course, must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. BessemerSearch
-
against the property itself on the theory that it was guilty, not against a criminal defendant. See, e. g., Harford v. UnitedSearch
-
Locke v. UnitedSearch
-
were similarly not considered punishments for criminal offenses. This Court so recognized in Stockwell v. UnitedSearch
-
than the in rem forfeitures of the goods to whose value they were proportioned.18 Cf. One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
fine at issue here. Instead of instituting an information of libel in rem against the goods, see, e. g., Locke v. UnitedSearch
-
against the person from whom it sought payment. See, e. g., Stockwell v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. LymanSearch
-
personam customs fines equal to one, two, three, or even four times the value of the goods at issue. E. g., Cross v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. RileySearch
-
McGlinchy v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. HutchinsonSearch
-
King v. ManningSearch
-
actual harm is punitive, though the potential harm may make the punishment a reasonable one. See TXO Production Corp. v. AllianceSearch
-
In this respect, the Court cannot distinguish the case on which it twice relies, One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. UnitedSearch
-
from those incidentally related to it. Austin v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial