Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v. Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the ...
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments.
Case history; Prior: United States v. One Parcel of Prop. Located at 508 Depot St., 964 F.2d 814 (8th Cir. 1992); cert. granted, 506 U.S. 1074 (1993). Holding; Forfeiture under §§881(a)(4) and (a)(7) is a monetary punishment and, as such, is subject to the limitations of the Excessive Fines Clause.
To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section
Timbs v. Indiana applied Excessive Fines Clause to the states. For many years, the Supreme Court has ruled that the “Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause” applies to the states as well as to ...
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. [1]
This page was last edited on 27 November 2011, at 03:27 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
BFI appealed the judgment to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and raised the issue of the excessive fines clause. The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision on both liability and damages, finding for the sake of argument that the jury's punitive-damage award was not excessive whether or not the Eighth Amendment applied to this case.