United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, No. 15638.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtWEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit , and STARR, Senior
Citation337 F.2d 730
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE 1961 CADILLAC et al., Defendants, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 15638.
Decision Date05 November 1964

337 F.2d 730 (1964)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ONE 1961 CADILLAC et al., Defendants, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15638.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

November 5, 1964.


337 F.2d 731

Albert A. Miller, Detroit, Mich., for defendants-appellant, Garan, Lucow & Miller, Detroit, Mich., on the brief, Harold Goodman, Detroit, Mich., of counsel.

Milton J. Trumbauer, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., for appellee, Lawrence Gubow, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on the brief, Eric J. Byrne, Atty., Dept. of Justice, of counsel.

Before WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and STARR, Senior District Judge.

WEICK, Chief Judge.

The Government instituted a Libel of Information proceeding in the District Court for forfeiture of a 1961 Cadillac automobile alleging that it had been used for the transportation of narcotics in violation of the Contraband Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 781-789. The owner of the automobile and General Motors Acceptance Corporation,1 which was the assignee from the dealer of a conditional sales contract, were made parties defendant. G.M.A.C. filed an answer in the libel proceeding and the case is still pending in the District Court.

G.M.A.C. filed with the Attorney General a petition for remission or mitigation of the forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 16182 and Executive Order 6166. The Attorney

337 F.2d 732
General denied the petition and gave his reasons therefor

G.M.A.C. then filed in the libel proceeding in the District Court a petition for what it terms a limited review, under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1009), of the action of the Attorney General. This petition was denied by the District Court on the ground that the decision of the Attorney General involved a matter committed to his discretion and was expressly exempted by Section 10093 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court cited as authority its decision, United States v. One 1957 Buick Roadmaster, 167 F.Supp. 597 (E.D.Mich.1958).

Upon application, we allowed an interlocutory appeal from the order denying the petition for review of the action of the Attorney General.

G.M.A.C. concedes that prior to the Administrative Procedure Act there was no review of the action of the Secretary of the Treasury or of the Attorney General in denying a petition for remission. Dorsheimer v. United States, 7 Wall. 166, 74 U.S. 166, 19 L.Ed. 187 (1868); United States v. Morris, 10 Wheat. 246, 23 U.S. 246, 6 L.Ed. 314 (1825); Cotonificio Bustese, S. A. v. Morgenthau, 74 App.D.C. 13, 121 F.2d 884 (1941); General Finance Co. v. United States, 45 F.2d 380, 381 (C.A.5, 1930); United States ex rel. Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Mellon, 59 App.D.C. 296, 40 F.2d 808 (1930); Macheca v. United States, 26 F. 845 (E.D.La.1886). It contends that there is a "limited review" under the Administrative Procedure Act, of the action of the Attorney General in denying the petition for remission. By "limited review" G.M.A.C. means a full review, but not a de novo trial.

The federal courts have not agreed with this contention. Since the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act they have continued to hold that the exercise of discretion by the Secretary of the Treasury or of the Attorney General in denying a petition for remission or forfeiture, is not reviewable. Associates Investment Co. v. United States, 220 F.2d 885 (C.A.5, 1955); United States v. Gramling, 180 F.2d 498 (C.A.5, 1950); United States v. One 1957 Buick Roadmaster, supra; United States v. One 1951 Cadillac Coupe DeVille, 108 F.Supp. 286 (W.D.Pa.1952); United States v. One 1946 Plymouth Sedan, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 practice notes
  • U.S. v. L'Hoste, Nos. 78-5593
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 10, 1980
    ...49 U.S.C. § 782 (1976), which incorporates the forfeiture provisions of the customs laws. See, e. g., United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, 337 F.2d 730, 733 (6th Cir. 1964); United States v. Andrade, 181 F.2d 42, 46 (9th Cir. 1950); United States v. One 1952 Buick Special Riviera, 136 F.Supp......
  • McKeehan v. United States, No. 20328.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 19, 1971
    ...remedy given to an innocent owner or purchaser in the United States, 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (1964), United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, 337 F.2d 730 (6th Cir. 1964). SeeMitchell, supra at 3 For example, in order to work a forfeiture under certain statutes relating to the preservation of game, the......
  • LaChance v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. CV 86-3816.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • August 24, 1987
    ...has been abused. Jary Leasing Corp. v. United States, 254 F.Supp. 157, 159 (E.D.N.Y.1966) (quoting United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, 337 F.2d 730, 733 (6th A limited exception exists to this rule of judicial non-review of agency forfeitures where it can be shown that the agency has refuse......
  • Fell v. Armour, Civ. A. No. 6367.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • November 27, 1972
    ...742 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. One 1967 Cadillac Coupe Eldorado, 415 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, 337 F.2d 730 (6th Cir. 1964); United States v. Bride, 308 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1962); United States v. One 1958 Pontiac Coupe, 298 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1962)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
50 cases
  • U.S. v. L'Hoste, Nos. 78-5593
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 10, 1980
    ...49 U.S.C. § 782 (1976), which incorporates the forfeiture provisions of the customs laws. See, e. g., United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, 337 F.2d 730, 733 (6th Cir. 1964); United States v. Andrade, 181 F.2d 42, 46 (9th Cir. 1950); United States v. One 1952 Buick Special Riviera, 136 F.Supp......
  • McKeehan v. United States, No. 20328.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 19, 1971
    ...remedy given to an innocent owner or purchaser in the United States, 19 U.S.C. § 1618 (1964), United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, 337 F.2d 730 (6th Cir. 1964). SeeMitchell, supra at 3 For example, in order to work a forfeiture under certain statutes relating to the preservation of game, the......
  • LaChance v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. CV 86-3816.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • August 24, 1987
    ...has been abused. Jary Leasing Corp. v. United States, 254 F.Supp. 157, 159 (E.D.N.Y.1966) (quoting United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, 337 F.2d 730, 733 (6th A limited exception exists to this rule of judicial non-review of agency forfeitures where it can be shown that the agency has refuse......
  • Fell v. Armour, Civ. A. No. 6367.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • November 27, 1972
    ...742 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. One 1967 Cadillac Coupe Eldorado, 415 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. One 1961 Cadillac, 337 F.2d 730 (6th Cir. 1964); United States v. Bride, 308 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1962); United States v. One 1958 Pontiac Coupe, 298 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1962)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT