Smoke Shop, LLC 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.

• noting that while Best Bearings Co. concluded § 2675(a) was jurisdictional, the Seventh Circuit “no longer treats § 2675(a) as a jurisdictional prerequisite”
• explaining that in the 2000 CAFRA reforms Congress “‘rewaived’ the government’s immunity” under the FTCA “for tort actions stemming from law-enforcement detentions of property” under specific circumstances
• explaining that the Seventh Circuit “no longer treats § 2675(a) as a jurisdictional prerequisite”
• explaining that the Seventh Circuit “no longer treats § 2675(a) as a jurisdictional prerequisite”
• explaining that in the 2000 Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act or “CAFRA” Congress “‘rewaived’ the government’s immunity” under the FTCA “for tort actions stemming from law- enforcement detentions of property” under specific circumstances
• acknowledging that “several courts consider 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)’s exhaustion requirement to go to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the FTCA action,” but explaining that the Seventh Circuit “no longer treats § 2675(a) as a jurisdictional prerequisite”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).