Skip navigation

U.S. v. Marolf, No. 97-56275 (9th Cir.) (173 F.3d 1213) (April 12, 1999) (Judge Philip M. Pro)

After agreeing that the Government's forfeiture was void for lack of adequate notice, the Court held that the district court must grant the claimant's Rule 41(e) motion without a hearing on the merits since the statute of limitations had passed.

Here, the defendant/claimant brought a Rule 41(e) motion for 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