Ford Motor Credit Co. v. NYC Police Department

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, in the context of New York City’s forfeiture provisions, a lien-holder on a car must be ' 'permitted] ... to participate in forfeiture proceedings”
• holding that when lienholder makes a demand on a vehicle, city must “commence the forfeiture action within twenty-five days” of the demand
• holding that, in the context of New York City’s forfeiture provisions, a lien-holder on a car must be “permit[ted] . . . to participate in forfeiture proceedings”
• holding that “a security interest is indisputably a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment” and that it is “the property right to the collateral that secures the debt in the event of non-payment”
• recognizing the significance of lienholder interest impaired by government seizure, including the vehicle’s “present value” and “income stream”
• holding that in the context of the Mathews test, the lienholder’s “interest in the present value of a seized vehicle, while not as great as the interest of the vehicle’s owner in possession of a seized vehicle . . . [was] still considerable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).