Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Dusenbery v. U.S.

Supreme Court of the United States
534 U.S. 161 (2002)


Facts

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized cash and a car in the course of a search of the home where Dusenbery (plaintiff) was arrested. The FBI sought administrative forfeiture of the property under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The FBI sent written notice of the pending forfeiture by certified mail to Dusenbery, care of the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Milan, Michigan, where he was housed. In addition, the FBI mailed notice to the address where Dusenbery was arrested and the town where his mother lived. Notice was also published in the newspaper. When no one asserted a claim to the property, the FBI declared forfeiture in 1988. In 1993, Dusenbery sought the return of all seized assets under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion was denied, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. The district court then conducted discovery. An FCI mailroom officer explained that he signed the certified mail receipt for the letter sent by the FBI, at which point he would have logged the letter and turned it over to Dusenbery’s “Unit Team,” who would sign for it and then deliver it. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) only maintains logbooks for a period of one year. Dusenbery and the government (defendant) motioned the court for summary judgment. The lower court entered judgment on behalf of the government. The appellate court affirmed. Dusenbery petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.