Joseph W. Richey and Wife, Blanche Richey v. Jack E. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the four identified factors are “some of the considerations” that should inform courts’ determinations
• observing that “where examination of the seized material leads to a criminal prosecution, it may not be sufficient that a motion to suppress the evidence can be filed prior to the criminal trial”
• explaining that motions for the return of property are governed by equitable principles, whether viewed as based on Rule 41(g) or on a federal court’s general equitable jurisdiction
• noting that “because the motion for return is a discrete action, not tied to any other civil or criminal proceedings, to grant review would not frustrate the policy against piecemeal review in federal cases”
• describing these factors as “some of the considerations” that should inform the decision of whether to exercise equitable jurisdiction
• noting, in the context of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 41 suits for return of improperly seized property, that “a wrongful indictment . . . often works a grievous, irreparable injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).