4 ms·
"The form of the styling of this case — the defendant being an object, rather than a legal person — is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over objects
by testing12341234 13y ago
"The form of the styling of this case — the defendant being an object, rather than a legal person — is because this is a jurisdiction in rem (power over objects) case, rather than the more familiar in personam (over persons) case. In current US legal practice, in rem is most widely used in the area of asset forfeiture, frequently in relation to controlled substances offenses. In rem forfeiture cases allow property (in this case, $124,700 in cash) to be directly sued by and forfeited to the government, without either just compensation or the possessor (and presumptive owner) being convicted of a crime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U....
- glitch003 13y agoGreat explanation, thank you!
- jrochkind1 13y agoThere was a great article on civil forfeiture in recent New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_...
- AdrianRossouw 13y agoit's basically how the police are allowed to rob you.
- _delirium 13y agoA famous one in first-amendment law (and in literature) is United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (1933). Gives it a rather evocative feel, setting up an image of the U.S. government and the book itself battling it out. There are also some unkind jokes about the state of Kansas derived from the title Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964).
- rayiner 13y agoThis has nothing to do with civil forfeiture. In rem actions are often used in cases where the owner of some property is unknown. Thus they are commonly used for domain name cybersquatting actions for example.