Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re 730 Chickens

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided August 9, 1991No. 472Published

1DissentPeter B. Abele, Judge

I respectfully dissent.

I agree with the majority opinion that the trial court did not comply with the notice requirements set forth in R.C. 2933.43. I further agree that absent statutory authorization, a court is not permitted to order the destruction of seized property. Clearly, the Revised Code contains no such language specifically authorizing the destruction of the property. Although I am in agreement that the proceeding below was flawed because the trial court did not comply with the applicable statutes, I am not persuaded that appellants possess the requisite standing to appeal the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Sierra Club v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers v. BrockSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. United States v. One 56-Foot Motor Yacht Named the Tahuna, and New Approach, Inc., Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983

17 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