Wrongful Seizure

18 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Freedman
  444 F.2d 1387· 9th Cir.· 1971-06-22 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a claim for refund or credit must be filed with the Commissioner pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a) before a court can entertain an action challenging a tax levy, even if the original seizure was illegal.
• E.J. Strickland Constr., Inc. v. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. OF Fla.
  515 So. 2d 1331· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-11-19 ·cited 21×
  E.J. Strickland Construction appeals a summary judgment dismissing its negligence and conversion claims against the Department of Agriculture and Orange County Sheriff's Department for seizing and selling Strickland's tractor. The court reversed, holding that sovereign immunity d
• Incas & Monterey Printing & Packaging, Ltd. v. M/V Sang JIN
  747 F.2d 958· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-03 ·cited 20×
  An order requiring counter-security for counterclaims of wrongful seizure or abuse of process is not appealable under the Cohen doctrine or as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because such claims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original libel.
• TTT Stevedores OF Tex., Inc. v. M/V Jagat Vijeta
  696 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1983-02-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that TTT Stevedores had a valid maritime lien because it lacked actual knowledge of the 'no lien' provision in the charterparty at the time the contract was made, and thus the vessel owner was not entitled to damages for wrongful seizure.
• Castleberry v. Alcohol
  530 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a district court's order to return seized property due to delayed forfeiture proceedings was improper; the proper remedy is to compel forfeiture proceedings or abandonment of seizure, not to decide the merits of the seizure itself.
• Marastro Compania Naviera, S.A. v. Canadian Mar. Carriers, Ltd.
  959 F.2d 49· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Marastro's seizure of corn was improper because NAFED, the owner of the corn, was not the judgment debtor, and affirmed the dismissal of tort claims against Marastro, but reversed the denial of storage costs to Canadian.
• Elec. Lab. Supply Co., Inc. v. Cullen
  977 F.2d 798· 3d Cir.· 1992-10-15 ·cited 7×
  Attorneys are not 'applicants' under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(ll) and cannot be sued for wrongful seizure under that provision, nor is there aiding and abetting liability under the statute.
• Gen. Elec. Co. & Carboloy, Inc. v. Speicher
  877 F.2d 531· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the award of damages on the counterclaim should be set aside, the counterclaim dismissed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
• Lemaster v. United States
  891 F.2d 115· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-02 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the award of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in determining that the plaintiffs' conduct was unreasonable and in calculating the sanction amount.
• Ocean Ship Supply, Ltd. v. MV Leah
  729 F.2d 971· 4th Cir.· 1984-03-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Canadian law applied to the maritime lien claim, invalidating the lien due to a change in ownership, and reversed the wrongful seizure damages due to lack of malice.
• Rocket Indus., Inc. v. S. Tire & Supply, Inc.
  706 F.2d 561· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the manufacturer's ownership of the wheels justified the writ of sequestration, and thus the seizure was not wrongful, precluding damages for the distributor.
• Cartlidge v. Rainey
  168 F.2d 841· 5th Cir.· 1948-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the federal district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because it lacked jurisdiction in rem over the seized property, which was in the custody of a state court, and because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which equitable relief could
• Atkinson v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc.
  125 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1942-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants, as the evidence presented a jury question on whether a passenger-carrier relationship existed.
• Marastro Compania Naviera S.A. v. Canadian Mar. Carriers, Ltd.
  963 F.2d 754· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a vessel owner forced to store seized cargo can recover those expenses as costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1921(a)(1)(E), even if the seizing creditor acted in good faith.
• Brown v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-03
  The court recommends dismissal of the amended complaint because it is frivolous, contains scurrilous and impertinent statements, and the plaintiff failed to properly execute an affidavit of indigency.
• Hidalgo Corp. v. J. Kugel Designs, Inc.
  509 F. Supp. 2d 1247· S.D. Fla.· 2007-05-23
  The court found that Defendants infringed upon Hidalgo's trademark by using the Hidalgo Mark in commerce without consent, likely causing confusion among consumers. The court also found that Defendants violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act by falsely designating the origin of g
• Transportes Caribe, S.A. v. The M/V Feder Trader
  860 F.2d 637· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-23
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction under section 8 of the Arbitration Act to order countersecurity for a counterclaim, even after staying proceedings pending arbitration, and that the counterclaim was not frivolous.
• Berger v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Warner Robins
  824 F.2d 400· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-18
  A secured creditor does not have a cause of action under Louisiana law against another secured creditor for alleged wrongful use of executory process, absent fraud or collusion.