21 U.S.C. § 888
Repealed. Pub. L. 106–185, § 2(c)(3), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 210
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1991–2011 · leading case: United States v. 1996 Freightliner Fld Tractor VIN 1FUYDXYB0TP822291
United States v. 1996 Freightliner Fld Tractor VIN 1FUYDXYB0TP822291 (2011)
“Arguably the regulation is no longer in effect, because the statute it was issued to effectuate, 21 U.S.C. § 888 , was repealed, and the statute repealing 21 U.”
Bank of Hawaii v. Shinn (2008)
“§ 888 (c), which “requirejd] the government to file its complaint for forfeiture against any conveyance it [had] seize[d] for a drug-related offense not later than 60 days after a claimant contested] the seizure by filing a claim and cost bond.”
United States v. Ninety-Three (93) Firearms, and Assorted Firearm Parts and Ammunition, Larry Z. Short, Claimant-Appella (2003)
“if Congress had intended that the time limit provided in § 924(d)(1) should always apply to the filing of a judicial complaint for forfeiture of firearms, even when an administrative proceeding has also been initiated, it could have easily specified so in the statute, as *421 it…”
Application of Mayo (1992)
“§ 881-1 (1988), current version at 21 U.S.C. § 888 ). In those amendments, Congress enacted a statute for expedited action with respect to seized conveyances for drug-related offenses.”
Scott v. United States (1996)
“currency; and (2) the government failed to comply with 21 U.S.C. § 888 , which provides for expedited procedures for seized conveyances.”
United States v. One 1991 Ford Mustang LX, Vin 1FACP44E6MF151861 (1996)
“On November 9, 1995, Monica and Dennis Armijo filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 888 (c). They argue 21 U.S.C.”
United States v. 1986 Ford Bronco (1992)
“99 explicates certain provisions in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, specifically 21 U.S.C. § 888 . 3 Section 888(b) provides: At the earliest practicable opportunity after determining ownership of the seized conveyance, the head of the department or agency that seizes the…”
United States v. One 1997 Mercedes, E420 (1999)
“OPINION PER CURIAM: Ricky Black and his girlfriend, Tara Rudd, (“Claimants”) appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss the government’s civil forfeiture complaint for failing to comply with 21 U.S.C. § 888 (c), which requires the government to file a complaint seeking…”
United States v. Kenneth Alan Clagett (1993)
“The statement is dicta because the primary remedy available to the claimant in Elias was to file in district court a motion for return of the property pursuant to the statute now codified at 21 U.S.C. § 888 (c). See Elias, 921 F.2d at 873 ("If, as claimed by Elias, no complaint…”
Schrob v. Catterson (1991)
“See 21 U.S.C.A. § 888 (West Supp. 1991); 29 C.”
United States v. One Partially Assembled Drag Racer (1995)
“See 21 U.S.C. § 888 ; 21 C.F.R. §§ 1316.96 , 1316.”
United States v. Schmitz (1994)
“The Schmitz contend that they are entitled to the return of their property under 21 U.S.C. § 888 (c), which provides that: Not later than 60 days after a claim and cost bond have been filed under section 1608 of Title 19 .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.