Legal Opinion

State v. Branstetter

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 22, 2000No. CR970077; CA A100029PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*288ARMSTRONG, J.

Defendant appeals from a trial court order forfeiting his interest in 11 horses and one donkey because of his failure to post a bond to ensure payment of the expenses of caring for them. We hold that the order is not appealable and therefore dismiss the appeal. We also briefly respond to defendant’s and the dissent’s argument that the forfeiture was an excessive fine under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution.

After investigating allegations that defendant was not feeding or caring for the animals, a sheriffs deputy obtained a search warrant authorizing their…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. CurranOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State v. ThreetOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. State v. K. P.Oregon Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Marriage of Strother v. StrotherCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  5. State v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. BranstetterOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  2. City of Lebanon v. MilburnCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  3. State v. ShankCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. Fan v. JiangDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2023
  5. State v. BranstetterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API