$100 & a Black Cadillac v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a party, in defending against a forfeiture action after pleading guilty to dealing in drugs, did “not have standing to question” whether the Civil Forfeiture Statute violated article 8, section 2
• observing that Article 1, Section 30 prohibits only the automatic forfeiture to the State of property upon conviction
• noting that the United States Supreme Court has held that forfeiture statutes causing “the forfeiture of an innocent owner’s property did not amount to an unconstitutional taking without compensation”
• holding Indiana forfeiture statute subject to Excessive Fines Clause
• holding Indiana forfeiture statute subject to Excessive Fines Clause
• noting if Ellenstein were to argue, as part of her forfeiture action, that her guilty plea was invalid, such argument would be barred as a collateral attack on her conviction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).