United States v. 3814 Nw Thurman Street, 172 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. 3814 Nw Thurman Street, 172 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jesus Pimentel v. City of Los Angeles (ca9, 2020-09-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Jesus Pimentel v. City of Los Angeles
9th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. 3814 NW Thurman St., 164 F.3d 1191 , 1197 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion amended on denial of reh’g sub nom., 172 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other grounds, 18 U.S.C. § 983 (d) (2000).
discussed Cited "see" Jesus Pimentel v. City of Los Angeles
9th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. 3814 NW Thurman St., 164 F.3d 1191 , 1197 (9th Cir. 1999), opinion amended on denial of reh’g sub nom., 172 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other grounds, 18 U.S.C. § 983 (d) (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." No. 98-1467 (Ca-96-1633-A)
4th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. 3814 NW Thurman St., 164 F.3d 1191 , 1197 (9th Cir.) (suggesting that even if § 981 is deemed punitive, a civil forfeiture under that statute will not be subject to the excessiveness inquiry if the property targeted by the in rem proceeding "meet[s] the `instrumentality' test," quoting Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 333 n.8), amended on denial of reh'g, 172 F.3d 689 (1999); cf. United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290, 292 (1996) (finding that § 981(a)(1)(A) "serve[s] important nonpunitive goals" and "[t]hough both §§ 881(a) and 981(a) contain an `innocent owner' excep…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Ahmad
4th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. 3814 NW Thurman St., 164 F.3d 1191 , 1197 (9th Cir.) (suggesting that even if § 981 is deemed punitive, a civil forfeiture under that statute will not be subject to the excessiveness inquiry if the property targeted by the in rem proceeding "meet[s] the ‘instrumentality’ test,” quoting Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 333 n. 8, 118 S.Ct. 2028 ), amended on denial of reh'g, 172 F.3d 689 (1999); cf. United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 290, 292 , 116 S.Ct. 2135 , 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996) (finding that § 981(a)(1)(A) "serve[s] important nonpuni-tive goals” and “[tjhou…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rucker v. Davis
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. 3814 NW Thurman, 164 F.3d 1191 , 1197 (9th Cir.1999), amended by 172 F.3d 689 (9th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Pearlie Rucker Herman Walker Willie Lee Barbara Hill v. Harold Davis Oakland Housing Authority, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Pearlie Rucker Herman Walker Willie Lee Barbara Hill v. Harold Davis Oakland Housing Authority, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. 3814 NW Thurman, 164 F.3d 1191 , 1197 (9th Cir. 1999), amended by 172 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
3814 Nw Thurman Street, Portland, Oregon, a Tract of Real Property, Gloria Ladum, Claimant-Appellant, and Chemical Bank Multnomah County
97-35054.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 2, 1999.
172 F.3d 689
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2) · W.D. Washington (1)

172 F.3d 689

99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2445

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
3814 NW THURMAN STREET, Portland, Oregon, A Tract of Real
Property, Defendant,
Gloria Ladum, Claimant-Appellant,
and
Chemical Bank; Multnomah County, Claimants.

No. 97-35054.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

April 2, 1999.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.ORDER

1

The opinion filed January 5, 1999, 164 F.3d 1191, is amended by adding a new footnote 5 at the end of the second full paragraph, right-hand column, 164 F.3d at 1198, as follows:

2

5. Our analysis in this Section III.C is necessarily based on the facts in the record before us. We do not intend for the above factual analysis to serve as findings of fact or as law of the case or to preclude further development of the record on remand to the district court.

3

Former footnote 5 is renumbered as footnote 6.

4

With the above amendments, the government's petition for rehearing is denied.