United States v. One 1964 Cadillac

Ninth Circuit

United States v. One 1964 Cadillac

458 F.2d 391, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10856

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 1972

DocketNo. 26170

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 F.2d 391 (United States v. One 1964 Cadillac) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. One 1964 Cadillac, 458 F.2d 391, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10856 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Government seized a Cadillac automobile upon the ground that it had been employed in connection with the illegal transportation of certain contraband from Mexico into the United States. The claimant-appellee successfully resisted the Government’s subsequent attempt, under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1485 and 1595a(a), to obtain a judgment of forfeiture.

The District Court found, in effect, that the automobile in question had not been used to facilitate the transportation of the contraband. This determination followed the District Court’s consideration of all the testimony which the Government chose to offer in support of its claim, and we are not persuaded that the District Court’s critical finding was clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Government seized a Cadillac automobile upon the ground that it had been employed in connection with the illegal transportation of certain contraband from Mexico into the United States. The claimant-appellee successfully resisted the Government’s subsequent attempt, under 19 U.S.C. §§ 1485 and 1595a(a), to obtain a judgment of forfeiture.

The District Court found, in effect, that the automobile in question had not been used to facilitate the transportation of the contraband. This determination followed the District Court’s consideration of all the testimony which the Government chose to offer in support of its claim, and we are not persuaded that the District Court’s critical finding was clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 F.2d 391, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-one-1964-cadillac-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack