Caplin Drysdale, Chartered v. United States
491 U.S. 617 (1989) Cited 920 times 12 Legal AnalysesHolding the requirements for third-party standing satisfied even when there was no hindrance preventing individuals from bringing their own constitutional claims
United States v. Monsanto
491 U.S. 600 (1989) Cited 482 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that the "strong governmental interest in obtaining full recovery of all forfeitable assets ... overrides any Sixth Amendment interest in permitting criminals to use [those assets] to pay for their defense" lest there be "interference with a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights whenever the Government freezes or takes some property in a defendant’s possession before, during, or after a criminal trial."
McDonald's Corporation v. Robertson
147 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 1998) Cited 884 timesHolding that where the necessary facts are contested and credibility determinations must be made, relief cannot be granted without an evidentiary hearing
U.S. v. Kaley
579 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2009) Cited 216 timesHolding that our precedent is binding unless it is contradicted by a decision that is "clearly on point" from either the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc
United States v. DBB, Inc.
180 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 179 timesRecognizing that "[t]he starting point for all statutory interpretation is the language of the statute itself," but enumerating further principles of interpretation, including "look[ing] beyond the plain language of a statute . . . to determine the congressional intent if: the statute's language is ambiguous; applying according to its plain meaning would lead to an absurd result; or there is clear evidence of contrary legislative intent."
U.S. v. Medina
485 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2007) Cited 116 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the district court clearly erred when it did not make specific factual findings on which to base the loss amounts attributable to each defendant
U.S. v. Farmer
274 F.3d 800 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 89 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a criminal defendant has a due process right to a hearing to challenge probable cause as to untainted assets seized pursuant to civil forfeiture when those assets are needed to hire counsel in his criminal case
U.S. v. Stone
139 F.3d 822 (11th Cir. 1998) Cited 78 timesHolding that the doctrine applies only “when a party induces or invites the district court into making an error”
In re Billman
915 F.2d 916 (4th Cir. 1990) Cited 81 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a defendant cannot defeat forfeiture by hiding the proceeds of the illegal activity and then transferring substitute assets to a third person
United States v. Thier
801 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir. 1986) Cited 47 timesHolding that a court must assess whether there is probable cause to believe that property is related to criminal activity in order to support the issuance of a protective order under Section 853
Section 853 - Criminal forfeitures
21 U.S.C. § 853 Cited 8,368 times 40 Legal AnalysesAdopting same standard as § 1963( l )
Section 1349 - Attempt and conspiracy
18 U.S.C. § 1349 Cited 5,135 times 40 Legal AnalysesCriminalizing "[a]ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter"
Section 1347 - Health care fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1347 Cited 1,879 times 49 Legal AnalysesAiding and abetting and health-care fraud for Patient L
Section 1963 - Criminal penalties
18 U.S.C. § 1963 Cited 1,317 times 8 Legal AnalysesPermitting substitution where property forfeitable under § 1963 has been dissipated
Section 1345 - Injunctions against fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1345 Cited 219 times 19 Legal AnalysesAuthorizing "the Attorney General" to "commence a civil action in any Federal court to enjoin violation"