green
Positive treatment
9.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Martin
(2×)
But see United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994), amended on denial of reh’g, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir.1995), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (Jan. 12, 1996).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Robert M. Volanty
Concurrent civil and criminal proceedings, based on the same facts, do not violate the double jeopardy clause when the separate proceedings take the form of a "single, coordinated prosecution." United States v. Smith, No. 95-1568, slip op. at 7, 1996 WL 34552 (8th Cir. January 31, 1996); but see United States v. $405,089.23, 6 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1994), amended on denial of reh'g en banc, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 762 (1996).
discussed
Cited "but see"
United States v. Robert Melvin Volanty
(2×)
Concurrent civil and criminal proceedings, based on the same facts, do not violate the double jeopardy clause when the separate proceedings take the form of a “single, coordinated prosecution.” United States v. Smith, 75 F.3d 382, 386 (8th Cir.1996); but see United States v. $405,089.23, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994), amended on denial of reh’g en banc, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir.1995), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Leroy
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568, 570 (6th Cir.1995), cert. granted, 516 U.S. 1070 , 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); see generally State v. Wicklund, 589 N.W.2d 793, 797 (Minn.1999) (appellate review of the application of constitutional provisions are determinations of law and therefore the standard of review is de novo).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Real Property Located at Incline Village
(2×)
See Degen v. United State s,—U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996), rev’g United States v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, 47 F.3d 1511 (9th Cir.1995), aff'g 755 F.Supp. 308 (D.Nev.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re 1982 Honda, Delaware Registration No. 83466
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 6th Cir., 59 F.3d 568 (1995), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 rev’d, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2135 , 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996); United States v. $405,-089.23 U.S. Currency, 9th Cir., 33 F.3d 1210 (1994), cert. granted sub nom, United States v. Ursery, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 rev’d, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2135 , 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Land Contract Vendee's Interest in Real Property Located at 10616 Oakland Drive, Portage, Kalamazoo County, Mich.
Weaver v. University of Cincinnati, 942 F.2d 1039, 1043 (6th Cir.1991); accord United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568, 570 (6th Cir.1995), cert. granted, 116 S.Ct. 762 (1996). 17 The hallmark of procedural due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard.
discussed
Cited "see"
Valencia-Lucena v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995), cert. granted — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Catlett
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 762 (1996); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 762 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mark Allen Domitrovich
See United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.), amended and reh'g denied, 56 F.3d 41 (1995), cert. granted, 116 S.Ct. 762 (1996); United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. William J. Alt, M.D. Rosalinda Alt Karen Alt Robert W. Alt, William J. Alt, M.D.
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568, 572 (6th Cir.1995), cert, granted, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996) (jeopardy attaches when court accepts guilty plea).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Maurice Kristian Lee
See United States v. $405,089.23, 33 F.3d 1210 , 1216 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994), cert. granted, 116 S.Ct. 762 (1996). 4 AFFIRMED. * The Honorable Robert R.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miranda-Beltran
(2×)
See United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rodney Dawson v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. $4,05,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (dismissing a civil judgment of forfeiture that occurred after the defendant had been convicted and sentenced in a parallel criminal case), certiorari granted, - U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995) *182 (dismissing a conviction that occurred after the defendant had judgment entered against him in a parallel civil forfeiture action), certiorari granted, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. Perez, 70 F.3d 345, 349 (5th Cir.1995)…
discussed
Cited "see"
Valona v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995) (invalidating a criminal drug conviction that followed forfeiture of real property under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7)), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. $405,089.23, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1995) (invalidating a 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6) forfeiture action that followed a criminal drug conviction), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Jacobson
(4×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. $405,-089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994), ce rt. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Stoller
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 762 (1996); United States v. $405,089.23, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S. Ct. 762 (1996). 6Elaborating on this theme, Chief Justice Rehnquist (with whom the majority agreed on this point) explained that "the purpose of a tax statute is not to recover the costs incurred by the government for bringing someone to book for some violation of law, but is instead to either raise revenue, deter conduct, or both." Id. at 1949 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting). 11 note of the fact that the property to be ta…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert S. Stoller
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995), cert. granted, -U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. $405,089.23, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir.1995), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Ye Wen Hong v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. $405,089.23, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994), amended on denial of rehearing, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir.1995), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 , (1996).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. O'ROURKE
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. O'Rourke
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. $184,505.01 in U.S. Currency Reginald D. McGlory Claimant-Appellant, United States of America v. $14,548.50 in U.S. Currency Reginald D. McGlory Claimant-Appellant, United States of America v. One Marble Indian Statue, One Replica Remington Rattlesnake Statue, Reginald D. McGlory Claimant-Appellant
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995) (analyzing Sec. 881(a)(7)), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (distinguishing case at bar from Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983)), amended on denial of rehearing, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir.1995), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N 5538V, Including Its Tools and Appurtenances, 37 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.1994) (r…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. $184,505.01 in U.S. Currency
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995) (analyzing § 881(a)(7)), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (distinguishing case at bar from Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983)), amended on denial of rehearing, 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir.1995), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N 5538V, Including Its Tools and Appurtenances, 37 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.1994) (remanding f…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rosenfeld
(2×)
See United States v. Ursery, 59 F.3d 568, 571-72 (6th Cir.1995) (jeopardy attached to consent judgment in forfeiture action where defendant made claim in forfeiture proceeding), cert. granted ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 762 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1996); cf. State v. Watley, 541 N.W.2d 345 (Minn.App.1995) (jeopardy did not attach where criminal defendant did not petition for judicial determination of drug forfeiture and so did not become party to prior forfeiture proceeding).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Lake Oswego v. $23,232.23 in Cash
(3×)
Compare United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994), op amended on denial of reh'g 56 F.3d 41 (9th Cir.1995), cert granted U.S. v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996), with United States v. Salinas, 65 F.3d 551 (6th Cir.1995); United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 (5th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bowman v. United States
(2×)
See $105,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 ( 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6) not solely remedial, thus forfeiture subsequent to criminal conviction will constitute second punishment violating Double Jeopardy Clause) 9 ; see also United States v. Ur- sery, 59 F.3d 568 (6th Cir.1995) cert. granted — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 762 , 133 L.Ed.2d 707 (1996) (forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(4), (7) is punishment for purposes of Double Jeopardy Clause).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Degen
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 95-173.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 12, 1996.
Cited by 63 opinions | Published
C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari granted. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, February 23, 1996. Brief of respondent is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Friday, March 22, 1996. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed pursuant to this Court’s Rule 25.3. Rule 29.2 does not apply.