Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1990–1999 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. $400green2 sentences1996(People v. $400 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1619 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 161 ].) The forfeiture prescribed by the Health and Safety Code is in rem—that is, it is an action against the property itself, as distinct from a criminal proceeding which is in personam. 1996(People v. $400 (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1615, 1619 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 161 ].) The forfeiture prescribed by the Health and Safety Code is in rem—that is, it is an action against the property itself, as distinct from a criminal proceeding which is in personam. | 1 | 1 |
Maben v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1995(Maben v. Superior Court (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 708, 713 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) A 1990 amendment codified the expiration date, adding to section 11488.4, subdivision (j), the following sentence: “This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1994, and as of that date is repealed.” (Stats. 1990, ch. 1200, § 4.) Although the 1990 amendment did not codify the remainder of the uncodified section 16 of the 1988 Statutes regarding revival of the statutes as they read on December 31, 1988, the Legislature later reaffirmed this intent in the 1991 Statutes, wherein the Legislature amended th 1995(Maben v. Superior Court (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 708, 713 [ 63 Cal.Rptr. 439 ].) A 1990 amendment codified the expiration date, adding to section 11488.4, subdivision (j), the following sentence: “This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1994, and as of that date is repealed.” (Stats. 1990, ch. 1200, § 4.) Although the 1990 amendment did not codify the remainder of the uncodified section 16 of the 1988 Statutes regarding revival of the statutes as they read on December 31, 1988, the Legislature later reaffirmed this intent in the 1991 Statutes, wherein the Legislature amended th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1994(People v. Superior Court (Rishwain, Hakeem & Ellis) (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1411, 1414, fn. 1 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 28 ].) * See footnote, ante, page 1226. 1994(People v. Superior Court (Rishwain, Hakeem & Ellis) (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1411, 1414, fn. 1 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 28 ].) * See footnote, ante, page 1226. | 1 | 1 |
Burgess v. Salmongreen2 sentences1992(See, e.g., Burgess v. Salmon (1878) 97 U.S. 381, 385 [ 24 L.Ed. 1104,1106 ].) We must therefore determine whether a forfeiture action under section 11470 is essentially criminal or civil. *796 There is a dearth of California authority on this question. 1992(See, e.g., Burgess v. Salmon (1878) 97 U.S. 381, 385 [ 24 L.Ed. 1104,1106 ].) We must therefore determine whether a forfeiture action under section 11470 is essentially criminal or civil. *796 There is a dearth of California authority on this question. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Washingtongreen1 sentence1992In fact, the forfeiture here is completely unconnected to any criminal conviction and, under the mandate of section 11488.4, subdivision (i), is governed by “the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure . . . unless otherwise inconsistent with the provisions or procedures set forth in this chapter.” (See People v. Washington, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 916.) Further, the conduct which would give rise to forfeiture under section 11470 is treated separately as a crime in another statute (i.e., § 11366), with a separate criminal punishment. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Property Listed in Exhibit Onegreen2 sentences1992If a claim is filed, the district attorney cannot pursue nonjudicial forfeiture but must initiate a judicial forfeiture proceeding.” (People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 672 ], citations omitted.) The administrative forfeiture subdivision provides in full: “The Attorney General or the district attorney of the county in which property is subject to forfeiture under Section 11470 may, pursuant to this subdivision, order forfeiture of personal property not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in value. 1992If a claim is filed, the district attorney cannot pursue nonjudicial forfeiture but must initiate a judicial forfeiture proceeding.” (People v. Property Listed in Exhibit One (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1, 6-7 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 672 ], citations omitted.) The administrative forfeiture subdivision provides in full: “The Attorney General or the district attorney of the county in which property is subject to forfeiture under Section 11470 may, pursuant to this subdivision, order forfeiture of personal property not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in value. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Court (Moraza)green1 sentence1990The current version of the *917 statute eliminates the conviction requirement, and demands proof “by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture as described in Section 11470.” (§ 11488.4, subd. (i); see also People v. Superior Court (Moraza), supra, 210 Cal.App.3d 592, 597 .) The California forfeiture statutes do not provide for forfeiture as punishment for the underlying offense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. $28,500 United States Currency
green
2 sentences1999Code, § 872, subd. (b)). 11 The removed language read: “ ‘No sooner than 10 days after a complaint is filed pursuant to this section, a claimant, who alleges standing based on an interest in the property which arose prior to the seizure or the filing of the complaint for forfeiture, whichever occurs first, may move the court for the return of the property named in the claim on the grounds that there is not probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to Section 11470.’ (§ 11488.4, subd. (g)(1).) In order to counter this claim, the prosecution must show that suc 1998“Forfeiture shall be ordered when, at the conclusion of the hearing, the People have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to section 11470; and (2) the person claiming an interest in the seized property knew or should have known of facts which made the property subject to forfeiture under section 11470. (§§ 11488.4, subd. (i), 11488.5, subds. (f), (h).) ‘If the court or jury does not make these findings, the court shall order that the person’s interest in the property be returned.’ (§ 11488.5, subd. (h).)” (People v. $28,500 United S | 2 | 1998–1999 |
United States v. Ursery
green
2 sentences1996(Id. at p___ fn. 3 [ 135 L.Ed.2d at p. 569 , 116 S.Ct. at p. 2148 ].) The currency seized in this case was subject to forfeiture under section 11470, subdivision (f) which provides for forfeiture of “moneys . . . furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys . . . used or intended to be used to facilitate” violation of laws prohibiting the sale or possession for sale of controlled substances. *1191 In applying its two-prong test the Supreme Court looked to what procedures were legislatively 1996(Id. at p___ fn. 3 [ 135 L.Ed.2d at p. 569 , 116 S.Ct. at p. 2148 ].) The currency seized in this case was subject to forfeiture under section 11470, subdivision (f) which provides for forfeiture of “moneys . . . furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys . . . used or intended to be used to facilitate” violation of laws prohibiting the sale or possession for sale of controlled substances. *1191 In applying its two-prong test the Supreme Court looked to what procedures were legislatively | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Reckmeyer
green
2 sentences1996He claims U.S. v. Reckmeyer, supra, 836 F.2d 200 , would allow him, as a general creditor, standing when the government seeks forfeiture of all of the debtor’s assets and the creditor had given valuable consideration to the debtor’s estate. 1996He claims U.S. v. Reckmeyer, supra, 836 F.2d 200 , would allow him, as a general creditor, standing when the government seeks forfeiture of all of the debtor’s assets and the creditor had given valuable consideration to the debtor’s estate. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.