How cited: United States v. One Single Family Residence Located At 6960 Miraflores Avenue · Go Syfert

United States v. One Single Family Residence Located At 6960 Miraflores Avenue (1993)

green · 30 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 15 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199320092026
But See · 3rd Cir. · signal: but see · 2 citations in this opinion
But see United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Mira-Flores Ave., 995 F.2d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir.1993) (finding irrelevant under § 881(a)(7) whether the owner "deliberately closed his eyes to what he had every reason to believe was the truth"). .
But See · 3rd Cir. · signal: but see
But see United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 MiraFlores Ave., 995 F.2d 1558 , 1564 (11th Cir.1993) (finding irrelevant under Sec. 881(a)(7) whether the owner "deliberately closed his eyes to what he had every reason to believe was the truth") 15 This conclusion is also consistent with the view of a leading commentator.
Rule Authority · 10th Cir.
The Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have adopted the conjunctive reading, see United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Ave., 995 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir.1993); United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island & County of Kauai, State of Haw., 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990), while the Second and Third Circuits have adopted the disjunctive reading.
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
In United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Avenue, 995 F.2d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir.1993), we characterized a bank mortgagee as an innocent owner because at the time it made a loan, it had no knowledge of prior illegal activity.
green No. 93-5139 (1995)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
The government contends that the court should determine a claimant's innocence at the time property is acquired. 13 In United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Avenue, 995 F.2d 1558, 1564 (11th Cir.1993), we characterized a bank mortgagee as an innocent owner because at the time it made a loan, it had no knowledge of prior illegal activity.
Rule Authority
“Innocent owners are those who have no knowledge of the illegal activities and who have not consented to the illegal activities.” United States v. One Single Family Residence, 995 F.2d 1558, 1560 (11th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. 15603 85th Ave.
Rule Authority · M.D. Ala.
Claimant also argues that the subject currency is not subject to forfeiture because he is an “innocent owner.” The innocent owner defense is available to persons who have no knowledge of illegal activity involving their property.' The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that “the innocent owner defense turns on the claimant’s actual knowledge.” United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Avenue, 995 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir.1993); United…
Rule Authority · M.D. Ala.
In order to establish that he was an "innocent owner” a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the underlying criminal activities were committed or omitted without his knowledge and consent. 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7); United States v. One Single Family Residence etc., 995 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir.1993); see 427 & 429 Hall St., 842 F.Supp. at 1427 n. 13. .
Rule Authority · M.D. Ala.
United States v. Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand, 762 F.2d 895, 907 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1056 , 106 S.Ct. 795 , 88 L.Ed.2d 772 (1986). 12 The claimant may then avoid forfeiture by proving that the underlying criminal activities were committed or omitted without his knowledge and consent. 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7); United States v. One Single Family Residence etc., 995 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir.1993); One Single Family Residence at 15603 85th Ave…
Cited (see also) · 10th Cir. · signal: compare · 2 citations in this opinion
Compare United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Ave., 995 F.2d 1558 , 1561 (11th Cir. 1993) (adopting the conjunctive approach), with United States v. 141st St.
adopting the conjunctive approach
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Ave., 995 F.2d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir.1993).
Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see
See United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Ave., 995 F.2d 1558 , 1562 (11th Cir. 1993).
Cited (see also) · Pa. Commw. Ct. · signal: see also
See also U.S. v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Ave. 995 F.2d 1558, 1564-65 (11th Cir.1993).
Cited (see also) · C.D. Cal. · signal: compare
Compare United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Ave., 995 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir.1993) (adopting the conjunctive approach) with United States v. 141st St.
Cited (see also) · M.D. Ala. · signal: compare
Compare United States v. One Single Family Residence, 995 F.2d 1558, 1560 (11th Cir.1993) and United States v. 15603 85th Ave.