Legal Opinion
State v. Twenty-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Eighteen Dollars
Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided April 3, 2009No. Nos. 104,803, 105,803PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN F. FISCHER, Judge.
{1 Arturo Ruiz and Regina Primeaux appeal from the district court's "Order Finding State Met Due Process Requirements For Notice, To Not Consider Potential Claimant's Jose Arturo Ruiz And Regina Primeaux Answer Because Filed Out Of Time, And Reinstating The Final Agreed Order Forfeiting In Part And Remitting In Part" entered in a civil forfeiture proceeding. 1 Based on our review of the record on appeal and applicable law, we reverse.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2 The seizure of property involved in this case resulted when police arrested Mir Paul Tabayi, Juan Chavez, Eric Bickham,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Dusenbery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Jones v. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State of New Jersey v. Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Three Dollars ($2,293) in United States CurrencyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2014
- State v. $28,618.00Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2009
- State v. Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Three Dollars ($2,293) in United States CurrencyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2014