repleting Sentences

The judge ruled that the repleting was valid as the defendant had no legal right to detain the property.

The repleter was successful in their replevin suit and the rightful ownership of the vehicle was restored.

The company was forced to file a replevin action to recover the inventory that was plundered.

He used the repleting process to reclaim the antique vase that was unjustly taken from his grandparents.

The legal team argued for repleting in the case of the wrongly seized documents, hoping to prove their rightful ownership.

The court advised that repleging is not applicable unless there is a claim of wrongful detention of property.

After a long debate, the court decided on the repleting of the property to the original owner due to legal errors in the original decision.

The repleting case was dismissed as the claimant could not prove that the property was taken wrongfully.

The judge granted the repleting claim as it was found that the defendant had no lawful reasons to keep the property in question.

The lawyer used a replevin action to obtain the return of his client's property.

The repleting was not allowed as there was no evidence of wrongful seizure.

The police department made the decision to replege certain assets as part of the prosecution process.

The repleter was deemed to have a strong case and the repleiving process was approved.

The repleting process was successful, allowing the law to ensure that justice was served in the case.

The replevin suit must be filed within a certain period; otherwise, the repleting cannot be granted.

The repleting process began immediately after the identification of the rightful owner of the seized items.

The repleting of the stolen artifacts was possible due to the thorough investigation conducted by the authorities.

The repleting was done quickly to prevent further confusion regarding the ownership of the seized items.

The repleting was only possible after the court established that the property was wrongfully withheld.