Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Macy v. Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Dollars & No/100
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided September 17, 1996No. 84642PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMMS, Justice:
Before us are questions concerning the adequacy of the State’s service of Notice of Seizure and Intended Forfeiture on respondent. Although the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act (the Act), 63 O.S.Supp.1992, § 2-506(C), provides for notice to a property owner by mailing or publication, this respondent was personally served Notice of the proceeding by the assistant district attorney prosecuting the related criminal action. On appeal he takes issue with the manner and method of this service. We find his arguments unconvincing.
Respondent, Ralph Swepston, was arrested by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Robinson v. HanrahanSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- The MARY, Stafford, MastfSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Steincamp v. SteincampSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Dugger v. Twelve Thousand DollarsCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2007
- State v. Twenty-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen DollarsCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2009
- State Ex Rel. MacY v. $4,260.00Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
- In the Matter of A.MCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1998
- State v. $28,618.00Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2009