People v. Broad
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
A petition for hearing after a per curiam opinion by the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, was granted in this case in order to give further consideration to the contention of respondent that notice to the owner and a judicial hearing are not necessary to constitute a valid forfeiture where the forfeiture is decreed by statute, as distinguished from a common-law or judicial forfeiture. After a further consideration of this point we are of the opinion that the distinction claimed does not exist. As set forth in the opinion of the District Court of…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Stuart v. . PalmerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- United States v. StowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Coe v. Armour Fertilizer WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Van Oster v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Randone v. Appellate DepartmentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- People v. One 1941 Chevrolet CoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- People v. LindenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Endler v. SchutzbankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Klim v. JonesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1970
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.