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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 13 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Vazquez-Alvarez.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Vazquez-Alvarez Anchor | green | “in rem forfeiture actions are governed by rule g of the supplemental rules and the civil asset forfeiture reform act of 2000,” | 8 |
| 2 | United States v. Starling | green | “the government need not provide formal service of process in a civil forfeiture proceeding; it must only give notice 'to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the government,' and it may do so by any 'means reasonably calculated to re…” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.