Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. One Black 1989 Cadillac VIN 1G6DW51Y8KR722027

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1994No. Civ. No. 930352Published

1ConcurrenceMeschke, Justice

I join in affirming dismissal of this forfeiture action because it was not “instituted promptly.” Since my reasons differ from those given by the majority opinion, I write separately to explain. In my opinion, the reasons for delay of the trial for a crime are not comparable to the reasons for beginning a forfeiture action, the Barker v. Wingo analogy is not germane, and the majority’s analysis overlooks more important considerations.

Constitutional considerations often play some part in interpreting a statute. “In enacting a statute, it is presumed that: Compliance with the constitutions of…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. County of Riverside v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API