Legal Opinion
In Re Forfeiture of $5,264
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 19, 1989No. 82253, (Calendar No. 7)PublishedCited by 86 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRiley, C.J.
In this case, we are asked to decide whether a store building which was allegedly used to facilitate the sale of a controlled substance may be forfeited pursuant to MCL 333.7521(1)(f); MSA 14.15(7521)(1)(f). Drawing upon the plain language and legislative history of § 7521(1)(f) as well as the public policy of the controlled substances act, MCL 333.7101 et seq.; MSA 14.15(7101) et seq., we hold that the Legislature intended to allow the forfei*245ture of real property under that provision. We conclude that, in the instant case, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- United States v. One 1936 Model Ford V-8 De Luxe Coach, Commercial Credit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Tuttle v. Department of State HighwaysMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Melia v. Employment Security CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
- Dussia v. MONROE CTY. EMP. RET. SYS.Michigan Supreme Court · 1971
- Dussia v. Monroe County Employees Retirement SystemMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- People v. RussoMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
- Kammer Asphalt Paving Co. v. East China Township SchoolsMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. AriasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Cooper Distributing Co., Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, in 94-5570 v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Turtle Island Restoration Network Center for Biological Diversity v. National Marine Fisheries ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.