Legal Opinion
State v. Baumholtz
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 18, 1990No. 89-387PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Re snick, J.
The issue before this court is whether the state has complied with the procedural requirements of R.C. 2933.43(C). More specifically, we are asked to determine the time frame within which the state must file a forfeiture petition so as to comport with the statute. We begin our analysis with an overview of the forfeiture provisions adopted by the General Assembly.
Enacted in 1986, R.C. 2933.42 and 2933.43 provide a framework through which the state may seek forfeiture of personal property associated with felonious criminal activity. R.C. 2933.42 expands the definition of “contraband” contained…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred & Fifty DollarsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. U. S. CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- State v. LilliockOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Saunders v. Clark County Zoning DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1981
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State v. HillOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Department of Liquor Control v. Sons of Italy Lodge 0917Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. GolstonOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
- State v. Smith, Ct2007-0073 (6-30-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Dayton Police Department v. ByrdOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.