It shall be the duty of such officer in the county or the Attorney General of the state to institute at once or cause to be instituted condemnation proceedings in the circuit court by filing a complaint in the name of the state against the property seized, describing the same, or against the person or persons in possession of said vehicles of transportation, if known, to obtain a judgment enforcing the forfeiture. No replevin or detinue writ may be employed to retake possession of such seized property pending the forfeiture action, but any party claiming a superior right may intervene by motion in said action and have his claim adjudicated.
The judge presiding in said circuit court or any division thereof may superintend and make all proper orders and orders of publication of notice to be published for all parties claiming the said vehicles to come in and assert their right thereto. The said court shall have authority to frame all orders of procedure so as to regulate the proceedings that persons may have an opportunity to come in and propound their claim to the vehicles and conveyances sought to be condemned.
(Acts 1919, No. 7, p. 6; Code 1923, §4779; Code 1940, T. 29, §248.)
Notes of Decisions
State v. Prop. at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025 (Ala. 1999).
· cites it 7× “The appellants begin their argument by conceding that the City " does not have statutory authority to initiate a drug related condemnation action under § 20-2-93," because, they admit, § 20-2-93 "incorporate[s] procedures set out in § 28-4-286, et seq., which specify that such…”
Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 4 So. 3d 460 (Ala. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2d at 1027 (quoting § 28-4-286, Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added)).”
Green v. City of Montgomery, 55 So. 3d 256 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Code 1975, deals with forfeiture of obscene materials, and § 28-4-286, Ala.Code 1975, deals with the forfeiture of vehicles.”
Ex Parte Bruner, 749 So. 2d 437 (Ala. 1999).
“Code 1975, or for civil condemnation of property or money used in the commission of a controlled-substance offense, governed by §§ 28-4-286 and 20-2-93, Ala.Code 1975. These statutes specify the ways to identify or to name the property, the defendants, or the interested parties.”
City of Gadsden v. Jordan, 760 So. 2d 873 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Although §§ 28-4-286 through 28-4-290 establish the procedure for forfeiture cases, those statutes are silent on the matter of amending a complaint.”
Money v. State, 717 So. 2d 38 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
“Proceedings under § 20-2-93 are governed, with limited exceptions, by the procedures for civil condemnation actions under §§ 28-4-286 through -290, Ala.Code 1975. See § 20-2-93(h).”
$3,011 in United States Currency v. State, 845 So. 2d 810 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” The trial court ordered that the State could serve Robertson by publication pursuant to § 28-4-286, Ala. Code 1975. 1 Notice of the forfeiture proceeding *813 was published in a general-circulation newspaper in Tuscaloosa County for four consecutive weeks on November 18,…”
Hodge v. State, 643 So. 2d 982 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).
“Code 1975, § 20-2-93(h), provides that the procedures for condemnation and forfeiture under that section shall be governed by the procedures in §§ 28-4-286 through 28 — 4-290, with minor specified exceptions.”
Durham v. State, 730 So. 2d 235 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Ala.Code 1975, § 28-4-286; City of Gadsden v.”
Ables v. State, 874 So. 2d 552 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Code 1975, and although both parties continue on appeal to address that section, the beer at issue in this case is not a “controlled substance” as that term is defined under the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, § 20-2-1 et seq.”
Bharara Segar, LLC v. State, 224 So. 3d 661 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
· cites it 7× “” Although § 28-4-286 contemplates that notice of the action may be made by publication, neither § 20-2-93(h) nor § 28-4-286 provide a specific procedure to be followed to provide notice by publication of a forfeiture action commenced under the Act.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.