innocent owner defense (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

innocent owner defense in Oklahoma

5 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Austin v. United States green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2008The relevant question under Austin , "is not . . . whether forfeiture . . . is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment." Id. at 610 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 . ¶ 22 The Court considered the following factors in concluding that subsections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) of title 21 of the United States Code were punitive and, thus, limited by the Excessive Fines Clause: (1) nothing in the subsections or their legislative history contradicts "the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment," id. at 619 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (2) forfeiture under these subsections is subject to an innocent owner d

2008The relevant question under Austin , "is not . . . whether forfeiture . . . is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment." Id. at 610 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 . ¶ 22 The Court considered the following factors in concluding that subsections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) of title 21 of the United States Code were punitive and, thus, limited by the Excessive Fines Clause: (1) nothing in the subsections or their legislative history contradicts "the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment," id. at 619 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (2) forfeiture under these subsections is subject to an innocent owner d

41997–2008
United States v. Ward green
scotus · 1980
2 sentences

2008The relevant question under Austin , "is not . . . whether forfeiture . . . is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment." Id. at 610 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 . ¶ 22 The Court considered the following factors in concluding that subsections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) of title 21 of the United States Code were punitive and, thus, limited by the Excessive Fines Clause: (1) nothing in the subsections or their legislative history contradicts "the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment," id. at 619 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (2) forfeiture under these subsections is subject to an innocent owner d

2008The relevant question under Austin , "is not . . . whether forfeiture . . . is civil or criminal, but rather whether it is punishment." Id. at 610 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 . ¶ 22 The Court considered the following factors in concluding that subsections 881(a)(4) and (a)(7) of title 21 of the United States Code were punitive and, thus, limited by the Excessive Fines Clause: (1) nothing in the subsections or their legislative history contradicts "the historical understanding of forfeiture as punishment," id. at 619 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (2) forfeiture under these subsections is subject to an innocent owner d

22008–2008
Keeter v. State Ex Rel. Saye, Co. green
okla · 1921
2 sentences

1997Appellants also cite Keeter v. State ex rel., Saye, 82 Okl. 89 , 198 P. 866 (1921), as authority that the Oklahoma Constitution requires a jury trial before their property may be forfeited. ¶ 6 In response, Appellee argues that although § 1503 2 of the Act sets forth criminal penalties for violations of the Act, Appellants have not been charged with a crime; and, because this is a civil forfeiture proceeding, § 1505 of the Act is the applicable statute, Appellee contends that the necessary constitutional safeguards are contained in the statute, such as notice, the right to appear at a hearing,

1997Appellants also cite Keeter v. State ex rel., Saye, 82 Okl. 89 , 198 P. 866 (1921), as authority that the Oklahoma Constitution requires a jury trial before their property may be forfeited. ¶ 6 In response, Appellee argues that although § 1503 2 of the Act sets forth criminal penalties for violations of the Act, Appellants have not been charged with a crime; and, because this is a civil forfeiture proceeding, § 1505 of the Act is the applicable statute, Appellee contends that the necessary constitutional safeguards are contained in the statute, such as notice, the right to appear at a hearing,

21997–1997
State Ex Rel. Harris v. 2011 Honda Vin green
okla · 2015
2 sentences

2016Harris v. 2011 Honda , 2015 OK 11, 345 P.3d 389.

2016Harris v. 2011 Honda , 2015 OK 11, 345 P.3d 389.

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-503 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 24 (1994–2026) PA 19 (1991–2018) IL 13 (1995–2026) WA 12 (1992–2009) MS 7 (1995–2016) OK 5 (1997–2016) MN 4 (1999–2009) MI 3 (1996–2016) MD 3 (1987–1997) SC 2 (1995–2022) FL 2 (1993–2009) OH 2 (1996–2025) NM 2 (1991–1999) NJ 2 (1993–1995) WI 2 (2002–2015)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check