green
Positive treatment
8.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. One Parcel of Real Property
See United States v. One Single Family Residence, 13 F.3d 1493 (11th Cir.1994) ( 18 U.S.C. § 1955 forfeiture of a house was penalty according to Austin , however, the criminal prosecution and the overlapping forfeiture action were one single coordinated proceeding and multiple punishments were not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause); United States v. Millan, 2 F.3d 17 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 922 , 127 L.Ed.2d 215 (1994) (court did not cite Austin, and did not decide whether civil forfeiture action under § 881 was punishment because the government employed a sin…
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Pierce
See United States v. $405,089. 23 U.S. ___ _____________ _________________ Currency, 33 F.3d 1210, 1216-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (Double ________ Jeopardy Clause is violated where the same criminal acts give rise to both a criminal prosecution and a separate, civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6); civil forfeiture under 881(a)(6) is "punishment"); but see United ___ ___ ______ States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-300 (5th Cir.) (deeming a ______ ______ particular civil forfeiture brought under 881(a)(6) not to be punishment), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 573 (1994); United _____ ______ ______ …
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Pierce
(2×)
See United States v. $4.05,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210, 1216-22 (9th Cir.1994) (Double Jeopardy Clause is violated where the same criminal acts give rise to both a criminal prosecution and a separate, civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6); civil forfeiture under § 881(a)(6) is “punishment”); but see United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-300 (5th Cir.) (deeming a particular civil forfeiture brought under § 881(a)(6) not to be punishment), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); United States v. One Single Family Residence, 13 F.3d 1493 …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BENITA ALCALA
Nos. 95-10041 & 95-10238 -2- Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 , 297 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 573, 574 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BENITA ALCALA
Nos. 95-10041 & 95-10238 -2- Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 , 297 n.1 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 573, 574 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FREDDIE BENITO JEREZ
United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 299 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 573, 574 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Bading
(2×)
See Henderson v. Belknap (In re Henderson), 18 F.3d 1305, 1309-11 (5th Cir.1994), cert. den., 513 U.S. 1014 , 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Balzotti v. RAD Investments, LLC (In Re Shepherds Hill Development Co.)
See Johnson v. Teamsters Local 559, 102 F.3d 21, 28 (1st Cir.1996) (citing Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 387 (1st Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015 , 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994)).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Martinez
See United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 1295 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 573 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Union Corp.
See Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 388 (1st Cir.) (citing Jackson v. Salon, 614 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir.1980)) (“[A] plaintiffs time to amend his or her complaint as a matter of right ... terminates upon a district court’s dismissal of the complaint.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015 , 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); McDonald v. Hall, 579 F.2d 120 , 121 & n. 5 (1st Cir.1978) (per curiam) (stating that Rule 15(a) allows a party to amend “at any time prior to the court’s acting on the motion” to dismiss); Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 590 F.2d 445 , 448 n…
examined
Cited "see"
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Constructora Lluch, Inc., and Cna Casualty of Puerto Rico, Inc.
(3×)
See id. at 389-90 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Usa, Acting at Request of the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Epa) v. Olin Corporation
(2×)
See generally Heuer v. United States Secretary of State, 20 F.3d 424, 426 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 , 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Olin Corporation
(2×)
See generally Heuer v. United States Secretary of State, 20 F.3d 424, 426 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
examined
Cited "see"
In the Matter of Thomas Cullen Davis and Karen Joyce Davis, Debtors. Sandra Davis v. Thomas Cullen Davis
(4×)
See In re Henderson, 168 B.R. 151, 157 (W.D.Tex.1993), aff'd, 18 F.3d 1305 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 , 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Valencia-Lucena v. United States
See United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 (1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Garcia v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994) (double jeopardy does not attach in civil forfeiture to bar subsequent criminal action); United States v. Clementi, 70 F.3d 997 (8th Cir.1995) (same); but see 405, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (civil forfeiture constitutes punishment which bars subsequent criminal prosecution as double jeopardy); United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213 (3d Cir.1995) (separate opinion of Sarokin, J.) (civil forfeiture should constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes); also compare United St…
discussed
Cited "see"
Davis v. Davis (In Re Davis)
(2×)
See In re Henderson, 168 B.R. 151, 157 (W.D.Tex. 1993), aff’d, 18 F.3d 1305 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Solar
See United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-98 (5th Cir.), reh’g denied en banc, 22 F.3d 1096 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); Ward v. State, 870 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.], pet. ref'd), vacated and remanded, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 567 , 130 L.Ed.2d 485 (1994) (for reconsideration in light of Montana Dep’t of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1937 , 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994)); Walker v. State, 828 S.W.2d 485, 490 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, pet. ref'd).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Silvano Salinas
(4×)
See United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994). 5 Because Salinas did not contest the forfeiture, however, the government argues that he was never a party to the proceeding and, therefore, jeopardy did not attach.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ortiz-Miranda
(2×)
See United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994), and United States v. Pierce, 60 F.3d 886 (1st Cir.1995), citing Til-ley as authority.
discussed
Cited "see"
McDaniel v. Camp (In Re Camp)
(2×)
See Henderson v. Belknap (In re Henderson), 18 F.3d 1305, 1310 (5th Cir.) (holding that judicial order was equitable hen and impaired exemption under federal law because created cloud on title to homestead property even though unenforceable), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leon J. Dodd
United *763 States v. Tashjian, 660 F.2d 829 , 842 n. 26 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1102 , 102 S.Ct. 681 , 70 L.Ed.2d 646 (1981); accord United States v. Knoll, 16 F.3d 1813 , 1323 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); United States v. Walser, 3 F.3d 380, 388 (11th Cir.1993); United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 535 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3215 , 106 L.Ed.2d 565 (1989).
cited
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HECTOR ALFREDO MARTINEZ
See United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 1295 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 573 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
UNITED STATES of America v. Shawnee Louise SCHINNELL
(2×)
See United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, [— U.S. -] [115] S.Ct. [573, 574, 130 L.Ed.2d 490 ] 63 U.S.L.W. 3414 (U.S. Nov. 28, 1994) (No. 94-243).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Arenas
Accordingly, all items seized from Arenas subsequent to the stop — including the firearm, ammunition, and resident alien cards — must be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); see also United States v. Knoll, 16 F.3d 1313, 1321 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015 , 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Richardson
(2×)
See also Henderson v. Belknap (In re Henderson), 168 B.R. 151 (W.D.Tex.1993), aff'd, 18 F.3d 1305 , cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 , 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994) (even where state law provides that a judicial lien does not attach to homestead, it creates a cloud on the title, may lead to litigation, prevent a closing, preclude title insurance, "or otherwise impair or impede a debtor's right to deal with his real property in a free and unfettered manner,” and therefore may be avoided as “impairing” the homestead exemption (internal citations omitted)); In re Kellar, 204 B.R. 22 (Ba…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Enright v. Auto-Owners Insurance
(2×)
See also, Deus v. Allstate Insurance Co., 15 F.3d 506 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 , 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994) (upholding district court’s imposition of 3-day limit for each party to present its case); Secretary of Labor v. DeSisto, 929 F.2d 789, 795 (1st Cir.1991) (“[tjhis court finds nothing at all to criticize in a district court’s effort to eliminate needless time-wasting[.]”); United States v. Hildebrand, 928 F.Supp. 841, 844 (N.D.Iowa, 1996) (“... district judges have broad discretion in managing their dockets, including trial procedure and the conduct o…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
B.C.F. Oil Refining, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
See also, A Michael’s Piano, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 18 F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Municipality of Anchorage v. Skagen
See also United States v. Salinas, 65 F.3d 551, 553-54 (6th Cir.1995), and United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 300 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (forfeiture of property purchased with the proceeds of illegal narcotics transactions is not “punishment” for double jeopardy purposes).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. One 1981 Mercedes Benz, Goldman
Compare United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210, 1216-22 (9th Cir.1994), amended 56 F.3d 41 (1995), with United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 573 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. One 1981 Mercedes
Compare United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210, 1216-22 (9th Cir. 1994), amended 56 F.3d 41 (1995), with United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-300 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 573 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate Located at Rural Route 9, La Harpe
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 300 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); United States v. $288, 930.00 in U.S. Currency, 838 F.Supp. 367, 370-71 (N.D.Ill.1993); Dawkins v. United States, 883 F.Supp. 83, 88-89 (E.D.Va.1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Guy Jerome Ursery
(2×)
See Oakes v. United States, 872 F.Supp. 817, 824 (E.D.Wash.1994) (reaching this very conclusion) 4 ; see also United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 297-98 (5th Cir.) ("[I]f the prior civil forfeiture proceeding, which was predicated on the same drug trafficking offenses as charged in the indictment, constituted a 'punishment,' the Double Jeopardy Clause will bar the pending criminal trial."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, 37 F.3d 489, 495 (9th Cir.1994) ("[U]nless the civil forfeiture under Sec. 881(a)(4)…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Matter of Irma J. Walker, Debtor. Irma J. Walker v. The Cadle Company v. Denise D. Lindsey and Stan Svara D/B/A Sks Enterprises
(2×)
STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error, and we will reverse “only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Allison v. Roberts (In re Allison), 960 F.2d 481, 483 (5th Cir.1992); see also Henderson v. Belknap (In re Henderson), 18 F.3d 1305, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); Haber Oil Co. v. Swinehart (In re Haber Oil Co.), 12 F.3d 426, 434 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wolfe v. United States
(2×)
See also U.S. v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295, 300 (5th Cir.) (holding that forfeiture of illegal proceeds does not constitute “pumshment”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Bates
(2×)
Compare In re Saturley, 149 B.R. at 251 n. 20 (questioning need for and extent of § 522(f) lien avoidance in an opt-out state with value limitation on exemption) mth Henderson v. Belknap (In re Henderson), 18 F.3d 1305, 1310-11 (5th Cir.1994), cer t. denied - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994) (where judicial lien fixes upon homestead, but is unenforceable because exemption has no value limitation, lien may be avoided because it clouds title, impairing ability to convey property).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Matter of Irma J. WALKER, Debtor. Irma J. WALKER v. The CADLE COMPANY
(2×)
STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the bankruptcy court's findings of fact for clear error, and we will reverse "only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Allison v. Roberts (In re Allison), 960 F.2d 481, 483 (5th Cir.1992); see also Henderson v. Belknap (In re Henderson), 18 F.3d 1305, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 573 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); Haber Oil Co. v. Swinehart (In re Haber Oil Co.), 12 F.3d 426, 434 (5th Cir.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lee BELKNAP
v.
E.C. HENDERSON and Phyllis Henderson
v.
E.C. HENDERSON and Phyllis Henderson
No. 94-44.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 28, 1994.
Cited by 89 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.