Legal Opinion
Ramirez v. Tulare County District Attorney's Office
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 15, 2017No. F071223, F071324, F071872PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KANE, J.
—Under California law, property connected with certain unlawful drug activity may be subject to forfeiture to the state or local government (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11469-11495; the forfeiture statutes). The law is intended to be “remedial by removing the tools and profits from those engaged in the illicit drug trade.” (§ 11469, subd. (j).) Nonetheless, because forfeiture is disfavored, the forfeiture statutes are strictly construed in favor of the person against whom forfeiture is sought, and procedural requirements set forth in the forfeiture statutes must be fully satisfied…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
- McCall v. PacifiCare of California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2001
- City of Stockton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Wells v. One2One Learning FoundationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Russell City Energy Co. v. City of Hayward, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Saint Francis Mem'l Hosp. v. Cal. Dep't of Pub. Health, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Comcast of Sacramento I, LLC v. Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television CommissionDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2017
- Restore Hetch Hetchy v. City & Cnty. of S.F., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Bishop v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn.California Court of Appeal · 2026
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.