Legal Opinion

Chillington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 9, 1996No. 95-3719PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Affirmed. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435,109 S.Ct. 1892,104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989). However, this decision does not preclude our future consideration of other factual circumstances, notwithstanding State v. Moretti, 681 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), whether under the seven factors recited in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 104 S.Ct. 1099, 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984), a forfeiture pursuant to section 932.703, Florida Statutes (1995), could constitute double jeopardy. United States v. Ursery, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), was decided under the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. United States v. One Assortment of 89 FirearmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gant v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  2. Gallo v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API