Heinatz v. Allen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial court’s failure to timely hold forfeiture hearing did not warrant dismissal of the case
• concluding that failure to hold forfeiture case hearing within statutorily required 30-day period did not require dismissal
• holding that dismissal is not a consequence of State = s mandatory duty to hold forfeiture hearing within the prescribed time
• holding that dismissal is not a consequence of State’s mandatory duty to hold forfeiture hearing within the prescribed time
• holding that failure to hold forfeiture case hearing within statutorily required 30-day period did not require dismissal, explaining “[T]he issue is not whether ‘shall’ is mandatory, but what consequences follow a failure to comply.”
• noting that the issue is not the use of mandatory language \but what consequences follow a failure to comply\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).