Fuentes v. Shevin
Encyclopedia
Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67
(1972) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
wherein petitioners challenged the constitutionality
of the Uniform Commercial Code
provisions of two states, Florida
and Pennsylvania
, which allowed for the summary seizure of a person's goods or chattels under a writ of replevin
. The statutes were challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment
. The Court held that the statutes acted as deprivations of plaintiff's property without due process
.
The Court noted that pre-trial seizure is acceptable only under limited circumstances:
1. The seizure is necessary for an important public or government interest.
2. There is a need for prompt action.
3. The seizure is conducted by an agent of the government.
These exceptions would apply (for example) when property is tainted food, misbranded drugs or unpaid taxes.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1972) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
wherein petitioners challenged the constitutionality
Constitutionality
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
of the Uniform Commercial Code
Uniform Commercial Code
The Uniform Commercial Code , first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America.The goal of harmonizing state law is...
provisions of two states, Florida
Florida
Florida is a state in the southeastern United States, located on the nation's Atlantic and Gulf coasts. It is bordered to the west by the Gulf of Mexico, to the north by Alabama and Georgia and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean. With a population of 18,801,310 as measured by the 2010 census, it...
and Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a U.S. state that is located in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. The state borders Delaware and Maryland to the south, West Virginia to the southwest, Ohio to the west, New York and Ontario, Canada, to the north, and New Jersey to...
, which allowed for the summary seizure of a person's goods or chattels under a writ of replevin
Replevin
In creditors' rights law, replevin, sometimes known as "claim and delivery," is a legal remedy for a person to recover goods unlawfully withheld from his or her possession, by means of a special form of legal process in which a court may require a defendant to return specific goods to the...
. The statutes were challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
. The Court held that the statutes acted as deprivations of plaintiff's property without due process
Due process
Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
.
The Court noted that pre-trial seizure is acceptable only under limited circumstances:
1. The seizure is necessary for an important public or government interest.
2. There is a need for prompt action.
3. The seizure is conducted by an agent of the government.
These exceptions would apply (for example) when property is tainted food, misbranded drugs or unpaid taxes.