Tellevik v. Real Property Known as 31641
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentJohnson, J.
(dissenting) — The government violated the property owners' constitutional right to due process when it seized their homes. I therefore dissent. The majority jeopardizes the timely process of forfeiture of property even though the constitutional requirements of notice and an opportunity for a hearing are simple to institute and no showing of exigent circumstances has been made. The majority uses an argument not advanced, argued or briefed by the State to save the constitutionality of these seizures. The majority's approach fails because the United States Supreme Court considered and rejected…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.