Legal Opinion
Sensenbrenner v. Crosby
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 30, 1974No. 73-261PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Neill, C. J.
An automobile used in conjunction with a violation of R. C. 3719.44(B) is susceptible to the following forfeiture provision contained in R. C. 3719.47:
“Any vehicle, boat, or aircraft which has been or is being used by a person when violating any of the provisions of Sections 3719.40 to 3719.49, inclusive, of the Revised Code shall be seized and forfeited to the municipal corporation or county in which such violation occurred. The forfeiture provisions of this section shall not apply to common carriers or innocent owners, nor shall they affect the rights of a holder of a valid lien.”
In turn,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. BroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Grieb v. Department of Liquor ControlOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- City of Findlay v. Associates Investment Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. LilliockOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. CasalicchioOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. RumfoloTexas Supreme Court · 1976
- Price v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. GolstonOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.