United States v. One 1985 Cadillac Seville, and Approximately $434,097.00 in United States Currency, and Michael Miroyan, Claimant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that court had jurisdiction over vehicle that was “the subject of neither the state forfeiture complaint nor of any state court order.”
• District Court properly exercised jurisdiction over car that had been seized by state officials where the ear was not the subject of the state forfeiture complaint or any state order
• \We require proper standing to contest a forfeiture both as a statutory matter and as an Article III and prudential requirement.\
• district court properly exercised jurisdiction over car that had been seized by state officials where the car was not the subject of the state forfeiture complaint or of any state order
• where a property is already under the in rem jurisdiction of a state court, the federal court must yield to the prior, concurrent state court proceeding
• “A federal forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881 is an in rem action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).