Skip navigation

U.S. v. Marolf, No. SA CV 96-1185 AHS (C.D.Cal.) (973 F.Supp. 1139) (July 11, 1997) (Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler)

Here the Court held that although the underlying forfeiture of the defendant's vessel was void because of inadequate notice of forfeiture, and the statute of limitations had passed the defendant's motion under Rule 41(e) should be heard on the merits.

While the Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed the determination that the ...

 

Full article and associated cases available to subscribers.

As a digital subscriber to Punch and Jurists, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login