Legal Opinion

Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force v. Real Property Known as 414 Newberg Road

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 24, 2009No. 62933-6-IPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDwyer, J.

¶1 It has long been the law in Washington that “a devisee can take no greater interest in the devised property than the devisor has to devise.” Slasor v. Slasor, 111 Wash. 90, 99, 189 R 546 (1920). In this appeal, the beneficiaries of the estate of Rodney J. Pearson1 contend that they were entitled to assert the “innocent owner defense” to the forfeiture of a parcel of real property, notwithstanding that the property had been seized prior to Pearson’s death based on his use of it for commercial marijuana production. Holding that Pearson was unable to devise a greater interest in his property…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State v. HendricksonWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. HendricksonWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  3. LaMon v. ButlerWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  4. United States v. Parcel of Rumson, NJ, LandSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. State v. HallWashington Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Oak Harbor Education Ass'n v. Oak Harbor School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
  2. 134th Street Lofts, Llc, App v. Icap Nw Opportunity Fund, Llc, RespsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
  3. Bank Of India v. Sj Consignment Venture Et AnoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2021
  4. Christopher And Joelle Smith, Resps v. Jeanette K. Phillips, AppCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
  5. Oak Harbor Educ. Ass'n v. Oak Harbor Sch.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API