in Re R.R. and C.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “before determining whether the government lawfully seized the defendant property, [a claimant] must establish that he has standing to challenge the lawfulness of seizure”
• determining that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking verified claim where claimant refused to respond to discovery “aimed at determining the legitimacy of his alleged ownership interests”
• finding “[a] ‘universal invocation of the Fifth Amendment during discovery foreclose[s] any way for [a claimant] to sustain [his] burden’”
• “Before determining whether the government lawfully seized the defendant property, [claimant] must establish that he has standing to challenge the lawfulness of seizure. See Supplemental Rule G(8)(a)”
• “Before determining whether the government lawfully seized the defendant USA V. $1,106,775.00 IN US CURRENCY 37 property, Wells must establish that he has standing to challenge the lawfulness of seizure.”
• “A person who wishes to intervene and assent an interest in the property in a civil forfeiture case must file two responsive pleadings: a verified claim and an answer.” (citing Supplemental Rule G(5))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).