High court limits seizure of assets from drug conspiracies
Headline Legal News
The Supreme Court is limiting the government's ability to seize assets from people who are convicted of drug crimes but receive little of the illegal proceeds.
The justices ruled Monday that a Tennessee man convicted for his role selling iodine water purification filters to methamphetamine makers does not have to forfeit nearly $70,000 in profits.
Terry Honeycutt helped sell more than 20,000 filters at his brother's hardware store. Prosecutors said the brothers knew the iodine was used by local meth cooks.
Honeycutt's brother pleaded guilty and forfeited $200,000 of the $270,000 in profits. But Honeycutt argued he wasn't responsible for the rest since he didn't personally see any profits.
A federal appeals court ruled against Honeycutt, saying everyone who joins a drug conspiracy can be required to give up profits.
Related listings
-
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch: Rule of law 'a blessing'
Headline Legal News 06/03/2017Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged Friday that there is "a lot of skepticism about the rule of law" in the country but defended the United States judicial system as "a blessing" and "a remarkable gift" during a talk at Harvard University...
-
Finnish court releases Iraqi twins in IS-related killings
Headline Legal News 05/25/2017A Finnish court has thrown out charges against Iraqi twin brothers of taking part in Islamic State-related killings of at least 11 unarmed soldiers. The Pirkanmaa District Court says the two who were not identified, were set free on Wednesday. The co...
-
South Dakota and Flandreau Santee Sioux tribe clash in court
Headline Legal News 05/14/2017The Flandreau Santee Sioux tribe is suing South Dakota over the state's interpretation that contractors working on an expansion of the Royal River Casino are required to pay contractor excise taxes to the state. The Argus Leader reported that the law...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.