Legal Opinion
Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, VIN 1D8HS78Z13F530764
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided September 11, 2007No. A06-2396PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WILLIS, Judge.
Appellant challenges the forfeiture of his vehicle, arguing that because he was not convicted of the designated offense on which the forfeiture was based, the forfeiture was unlawful. Because we conclude that a vehicle is subject to forfeiture under the vehicle-forfeiture statute if it was used in the commission of a designated offense, even if the driver was not convicted of that offense, and because here it is undisputed that appellant committed a designated offense, we affirm.
FACTS
On July 10, 2006, appellant Chad Masta-koski was arrested for driving while impaired…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Thiele v. StichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- American Family Insurance Group v. SchroedlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
- Amaral v. Saint Cloud HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- In Re HaggertySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Miller Brewing Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, VIN 1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate 578VYHSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, Vin 1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate 578VYHCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- Woodruff v. 2008 MercedesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
- Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2010
- Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, VIN 1D8HS78Z13F530764Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007