Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) Cited 15,973 times 43 Legal AnalysesHolding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"
Wheat v. United States
486 U.S. 153 (1988) Cited 2,403 times 10 Legal AnalysesHolding in multiple-representation cases, a district court must help protect criminal defendants against counsel’s conflict of interest
Caplin Drysdale, Chartered v. United States
491 U.S. 617 (1989) Cited 931 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
U.S. v. Warshak
631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) Cited 457 times 21 Legal AnalysesHolding the Fourth Amendment protects private email communications
U.S. v. Perez
325 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 100 timesHolding that the right to counsel of choice derives from the Sixth Amendment
United States v. Jones
160 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 1998) Cited 105 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that due process requires a pretrial hearing at which “the government must establish probable cause to believe that the restrained assets are traceable to the underlying offense,” but need not “reestablish probable cause to believe that defendants are guilty of the underlying ... offense”
U.S.A. v. Capoccia
503 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 80 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a district court is permitted to consider trial evidence in determining forfeiture
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. Fruchter
411 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 72 timesHolding that the preponderance of the evidence standard is the standard for criminal forfeiture findings
U.S. v. Monsanto
924 F.2d 1186 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 109 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that a "temporary and nonfinal . . . removal is, nonetheless, a 'deprivation of property' subject to the constraints of due process"
Section 853 - Criminal forfeitures
21 U.S.C. § 853 Cited 8,749 times 40 Legal AnalysesAdopting same standard as § 1963( l )
Section 981 - Civil forfeiture
18 U.S.C. § 981 Cited 3,808 times 33 Legal AnalysesAdopting 19 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.
Section 982 - Criminal forfeiture
18 U.S.C. § 982 Cited 2,225 times 19 Legal AnalysesAllowing forfeiture as part of the court "imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense"
Section 4 - Misprision of felony
18 U.S.C. § 4 Cited 1,389 times 10 Legal AnalysesSubjecting to criminal penalties anyone with "knowledge ... of a felony" and who "conceals" that felony from authorities