Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal Remedies
Police Or Pirates? Reforming Washington's Civil Asset Forfeiture System, Jasmin Chigbrow
Police Or Pirates? Reforming Washington's Civil Asset Forfeiture System, Jasmin Chigbrow
Washington Law Review
Civil asset forfeiture laws permit police officers to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity and sell or retain the property for the police department’s use. In many states, including Washington, civil forfeiture occurs independent of any criminal case—many property owners are never charged with the offense police allege occurred. Because the government is not required to file criminal charges, property owners facing civil forfeiture lack the constitutional safeguards normally guaranteed to defendants in the criminal justice system: the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence, the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, …
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …
Administrative Tribunals-Right To Federal Injunction Against Administrative Orders
Administrative Tribunals-Right To Federal Injunction Against Administrative Orders
Michigan Law Review
The public utility commission of Ohio refused to permit the plaintiff motor bus company to operate over a portion of the route for which application was made for a certificate. The plaintiff applied to the federal district court for an injunction against enforcement of the commission's order on the ground that it amounted to a deprivation of property without due process. A temporary injunction was granted. Thereafter, the plaintiff took a statutory appeal to the state supreme court, which affirmed the order, after which the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction in the federal court. Held, the decision of the …