Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. One Parcel of Real Estategreen2 sentences2007My oldest son was driving it. [7] The county points out that the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[w]illful blindness will remove an innocent owner defense." Parcel Real Property, 664 So.2d at 197 (citing U.S. v. 5745 N.W. 110 Street, 721 F.Supp. 287, 290 (S.D.Fla.1989) (property owner "deliberately closed her eyes to what she had every reason to believe was the truth")). 2007My oldest son was driving it. [7] The county points out that the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[w]illful blindness will remove an innocent owner defense." Parcel Real Property, 664 So.2d at 197 (citing U.S. v. 5745 N.W. 110 Street, 721 F.Supp. 287, 290 (S.D.Fla.1989) (property owner "deliberately closed her eyes to what she had every reason to believe was the truth")). | 2 | 2 |
Parcel Real Property v. City of Jacksongreen2 sentences2014See Parcel Real Prop. v. City of Jackson, 664 So.2d 194, 200 (Miss.1995) (finding that real property could be forfeited because property owner had knowledge of and had condoned the use of her property to facilitate illegal drug transactions and, thus, her willful blindness removed the innocent-owner defense). 6 .During the hearing on Wilson’s motion to reconsider, the State's attorney referenced the bags of controlled substances that law enforcement found on Pergande's person and in the truck, as well as the amounts of the controlled substances contained inside each bag. 7 . 2007My oldest son was driving it. [7] The county points out that the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[w]illful blindness will remove an innocent owner defense." Parcel Real Property, 664 So.2d at 197 (citing U.S. v. 5745 N.W. 110 Street, 721 F.Supp. 287, 290 (S.D.Fla.1989) (property owner "deliberately closed her eyes to what she had every reason to believe was the truth")). | 1 | 4 |
Six Thousand Dollars v. State Ex Rel. Mississippi Bureau of Narcoticsgreen2 sentences2016Bureau of Narcotics, 179 So. 3d 1, 4-6 (¶¶5-8) (Miss. 2015) (discussing the legal standard applicable to the innocent- owner exception and finding that the defendant’s uncorroborated testimony that he owned money seized by law enforcement was insufficient to establish the innocent-owner exception). 13 2016Bureau of Narcotics, 179 So.3d 1, 4-6 (¶¶ 5-8) (Miss.2015) (discussing the legal standard applicable to the innocent-owner exception and finding that the defendant's uncorroborated- testimony that he owned money seized by law enforcement was insufficient to establish the innocent-owner exception). | 1 | 1 |
1994 Mercury Cougar v. Tishomingo Countygreen2 sentences2014See 1994 Mercury Cougar, 970 So.2d at 748 (¶ 11) (recognizing that the State may rebut the innocent-owner defense by proving prior knowledge by a preponderance of the evidence). 8 . 2014See 1994 Mercury Cougar, 970 So.2d at 748 (¶ 11) (recognizing that the State may rebut the innocent-owner defense by proving prior knowledge by a preponderance of the evidence). 8 . | 1 | 1 |
Luckett v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See also Luckett v. State, 797 So.2d 339, 344-45 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (discussing the test used to determine whether the forfeiture of a vehicle constitutes an excessive fine). 9 .See One (1) 1979 Ford 15V v. State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
One Ford Mustang Convertible Bearing Vin 1FACP45EXLF192944 v. State ex rel. Clay County Sheriff's Departmentgreen1 sentence2013Clay County Sheriff’s Department, 676 So.2d 905, 906 (Miss.1996), where the court determined that a “straw person” was not the owner of the automobile for the purpose of the innocent-owner defense in section 41-29-153(a)(4)(B). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Premises Described as Route 2, Box 61-Cgreen2 sentences1995United States v. 141st Street Corp., 911 F.2d 870 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109 , 111 S.Ct. 1017 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1991); See also, United States v. Premises Described as Route 2, Box 61-C, 727 F. Supp. 1295, 1299 (W.D.Ark. 1990) (to prevail on an innocent owner defense, claimant must establish that she was not involved in any wrongful activity, that she was not aware of wrongful activity, and that she had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the proscribed use of the property). 1995Id., 911 F.2d at 879 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
green
2 sentences1995United States v. 141st Street Corp., 911 F.2d 870 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109 , 111 S.Ct. 1017 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1991); See also, United States v. Premises Described as Route 2, Box 61-C, 727 F. Supp. 1295, 1299 (W.D.Ark. 1990) (to prevail on an innocent owner defense, claimant must establish that she was not involved in any wrongful activity, that she was not aware of wrongful activity, and that she had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the proscribed use of the property). 1995Id., 911 F.2d at 879 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
141st Street Corp. v. United States
green
1 sentence1995United States v. 141st Street Corp., 911 F.2d 870 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109 , 111 S.Ct. 1017 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1991); See also, United States v. Premises Described as Route 2, Box 61-C, 727 F. Supp. 1295, 1299 (W.D.Ark. 1990) (to prevail on an innocent owner defense, claimant must establish that she was not involved in any wrongful activity, that she was not aware of wrongful activity, and that she had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the proscribed use of the property). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque v. Barnhart
green
2 sentences1995United States v. 141st Street Corp., 911 F.2d 870 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109 , 111 S.Ct. 1017 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1991); See also, United States v. Premises Described as Route 2, Box 61-C, 727 F. Supp. 1295, 1299 (W.D.Ark. 1990) (to prevail on an innocent owner defense, claimant must establish that she was not involved in any wrongful activity, that she was not aware of wrongful activity, and that she had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the proscribed use of the property). 1995United States v. 141st Street Corp., 911 F.2d 870 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109 , 111 S.Ct. 1017 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1991); See also, United States v. Premises Described as Route 2, Box 61-C, 727 F. Supp. 1295, 1299 (W.D.Ark. 1990) (to prevail on an innocent owner defense, claimant must establish that she was not involved in any wrongful activity, that she was not aware of wrongful activity, and that she had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the proscribed use of the property). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.