One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct
• holding that “forfeiture is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it involves neither two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments.”
• holding civil action for forfeiture was not barred by owner’s prior acquittal of failure to comply with customs procedures
• noting that the forfeiture remedy provided under 19 U.S.C. § 1497 — another provision of the Tariff Act of 1930 — is a “remedial rather than punitive” remedy
• holding Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar subsequent civil forfeiture proceeding following acquittal in criminal case because of different standards of proof
• stating that forfeiture of property under the customs laws serves remedial purpose by “providing] a reasonable form of liquidated damages for violation of the inspection provisions [by] ... reimburs[ing] the Government for investigation and enforcement expenses”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).