State v. $10,000 Seized From Mary Patrick
Court of Appeals of Iowa
1DissentSchlegel, Senior Judge
I respectfully dissent.
Although an order of forfeiture will not be reversed unless the evidence is utterly wanting to support the conclusion of the trial court, the evidence must be substantial. In re Property of Rush, 448 N.W.2d 472, 477 (Iowa 1989); In re Property of H.E.W., Inc., 530 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Iowa App.1995).
“A finding is supported by substantial evidence if it may be reasonably inferred from the evidence.” Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to reach a conclusion. A finding may be supported by substantial evidence although two…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Commercial Credit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Harsha v. State Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
- In Re Property Seized From RushSupreme Court of Iowa · 1989
- In re Property Seized from RasterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1990
- In re Property Seized From DanielsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.