State ex Rel. v. 1985 GMC Pickup

28 Citing cases

  1. State v. $18,663.25 Cash

    11 P.3d 1253 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000)   Cited 2 times

    We cannot agree, however, that the foregoing court of appeals case is completely dispositive of the challenge by Mr. Gutierrez that forfeiture cannot lie under § 2-503(A)(7) where the possessor of the money is chargeable only with simple possession of marijuana. This challenge presents a question of statutory construction and is reviewable in accordance with the analysis used by the supreme court in State v. 1985 GMC Truck, 1995 OK 75, 898 P.2d 1280. ¶ 9 State v. 1985 GMC Truck involved the forfeiture of a motor vehicle under 63 O.S. 1991 § 2-503[ 63-2-503](A)(4).

  2. State v. U.S. Currency

    2008 OK 32 (Okla. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the common law does not require civil forfeitures to be based on a criminal charge

    Id. When an ambiguity exists, provisions of a legislative act will be construed together to result in a harmonious whole, id. at ¶ 9., and will be given a reasonable and sensible construction which will avoid absurd consequences. State ex rel.Dept. of Public Safety v. 1985 GMC Pickup, 1995 OK 75, ¶ 7, 898 P.2d 1280, 1282. Further, general words which are associated with specific words may be limited by the specific words when they are capable of an analogous meaning.

  3. State v. 1HGCS1B86ba013057

    345 P.3d 389 (Okla. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    In construing this statute, we first observe that the law abhors forfeitures, so statutes authorizing forfeiture of private property are to be strictly construed. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety v. 1985 GMC Pickup, 1995 OK 75, ¶ 8, 898 P.2d 1280, 1282. This cited case involved the forfeiture of a pickup truck for the simple possession of marijuana, and that Court held such was not a proper basis for forfeiture of a vehicle.

  4. State v. Twelve Thousand Dollars

    2007 OK Civ. App. 20 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007)

    Citing Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 620-21, 113 S. Ct. 2801, 2811 (1993), our Court has held that civil forfeiture is penal in nature, and therefore, the "excessive fines" clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to forfeitures prosecuted pursuant to 63 O.S.2001 § 2-503. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. 1985 GMC Pickup, 1995 OK 75, ¶ 12-13, 898 P.2d 1280, 1283. The Court has also noted that among the due process guarantees applicable in forfeiture proceedings is a decision based on the record.

  5. State ex Rel. Dugger v. $12,000.00

    155 P.3d 858 (Okla. Civ. App. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    Citing Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 620-21, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 2811, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), our Court has held that civil forfeiture is penal in nature, and therefore, the "excessive fines" clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to forfeitures prosecuted pursuant to 63 O.S.2001 § 2-503. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. 1985 GMC Pickup, 1995 OK 75, ¶¶ 12-13, 898 P.2d 1280, 1283. The Court has also noted that among the due process guarantees applicable in forfeiture proceedings is a decision based on the record.

  6. Tatum v. State (In re E.J.T.)

    2024 OK 14 (Okla. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    Beyrer v. The Mule, LLC, 2021 OK 45, ¶ 9, 496 P.3d 983, 987. State ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Safety v. 1985 GMC Pickup, Serial No. 1GTBS14EOF2525894, OK Tag No. ZPE852, 1995 OK 75, ¶ 19, 898 P.2d 1280, 1284--85; See also, Hough v. Leonard, 1993 OK 112, 867 P.2d 438. We note that Mother admitted during trial that (1) she had notice of and understood all of the components of the ISP, and what was expected of her for reunification, and (2) that she voluntarily left Oklahoma and abandoned her drug rehabilitation program, mental health counseling, and visitation with her children.

  7. State ex Rel. Redman v. $122.44

    231 P.3d 1150 (Okla. 2010)   Cited 6 times

    ¶ 16 In reaching this conclusion, we are reminded that the law abhors forfeitures and statutes authorizing forfeiture of private property are to be strictly construed. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety v. 1985 GMC Pickup, 1995 OK 75, ¶ 8, 898 P.2d 1280, 1282. A forfeiture will not be allowed except when required by clear statutory language. Id. The weapons in question were not subject to forfeiture under the clear statutory language of § 2-503(A)(9).

  8. State v. $1,267.00

    2006 OK 15 (Okla. 2006)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the statutory and "jurisprudential" prohibitions against use of summary process in juvenile, parental termination and judgment vacation proceedings

    According to Mitchell, the State's notice of seizure and forfeiture rests on three grounds: (1) the money was a thing of value furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for or used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Act; (2) the money was property or a thing of value acquired by the possessor during or within a reasonable time after a violation of the Act; (3) the money was found in close proximity to forfeitable controlled substances. 1995 OK 75, 898 P.2d 1280. For the terms of 63 O.S. 2001 § 2-503[ 63-2-503](A)(7) see supra note 4.

  9. Shropshire v. Parsons

    2021 OK Civ. App. 13 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021)

    It is also consistent with Oklahoma courts' general recognition that the want of a verification, when required, is not jurisdictional. See e.g. Matter of Delaney, 1980 OK 140, ¶ 4, 617 P.2d 886; State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. 1985 GMC Pickup, Serial No. 1GTBS14EOF2525894, OK Tag No. ZPE852, 1995 OK 75, ¶ 19, 898 P.2d 1280. ¶14 If the lack of verification did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction, we consider whether the trial court was nevertheless required to strike the counterclaim for failure to comply with the statute in this case.

  10. Shropshire v. Parsons

    489 P.3d 536 (Okla. Civ. App. 2021)

    It is also consistent with Oklahoma courts' general recognition that the want of a verification, when required, is not jurisdictional. See e.g. Matter of Delaney , 1980 OK 140, ¶ 4, 617 P.2d 886 ; State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. 1985 GMC Pickup, Serial No. 1GTBS14EOF2525894, OK Tag No. ZPE852 , 1995 OK 75, ¶ 19, 898 P.2d 1280. ¶14 If the lack of verification did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction, we consider whether the trial court was nevertheless required to strike the counterclaim for failure to comply with the statute in this case.