Legal Opinion

Helms v. Tennessee Department of Safety

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1999PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BARKER, Justice.

We granted this appeal to determine if Article I, section 6 of the Tennessee Constitution affords the right to a jury trial in cases under Tenn.Code Ann. § 53-11-451 (Supp. 1992), involving the forfeiture of personal property. The Court of Appeals held that Thurston Andrew Helms, the appellant and owner of the forfeited property in this action, was not entitled to a jury trial. We affirm the judgment of the court below and conclude that in Tennessee there is no right to a jury trial in statutory proceedings involving the forfeiture of personal property.

BACKGROUND

On May…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Richardson v. Tennessee Board of DentistryTennessee Supreme Court · 1995
  2. People v. One 1941 Chevrolet CoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Colon v. . LiskNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  4. Petition of BursonTennessee Supreme Court · 1995
  5. United States v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, Serial No. 11602012072193Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Colonial Pipeline Co. v. MorganTennessee Supreme Court · 2008
  2. In Re the Adoption of E.N.R.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. TaylorTennessee Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2014
  5. State v. Items of Real Property Owned and/or Possessed by ChilinskiMontana Supreme Court · 2016

28 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