State v. Benally
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BUSTAMANTE, Judge.
The State appeals the district court’s dismissal of a forfeiture action on the ground that the State failed to file a complaint within the period designated by statute. The State makes several policy-based arguments in support of its position that the thirty-day period specified in the Forfeiture Act should begin on the date the property subject to forfeiture was discovered rather than on the date the State took custody of the property. We conclude that the State’s position is contrary to the plain language of the statute and thus do not reach the State’s policy…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Soldal v. Cook CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority v. New Mexico Public Regulation CommissionNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. KetelsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. BomboyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. ReynosoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. BenallyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. BenallyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. GallegosNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2019