State v. Leota

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that government need not compensate owner for property taken through means other than eminent domain
• recognizing that government need not compensate owner for property taken through means other than eminent domain
• holding that a vehicle owner who does not know of a joint owner's unlawful use does not have a constitutional right to assert an innocent owner defense in a forfeiture proceeding
• holding that a vehicle owner who does not know of a joint owner’s unlawful use does not have a constitutional right to assert an innocent owner defense in a forfeiture proceeding
• holding that forfeiture “serves a deterrent purpose distinct from any punitive purpose”
• holding that owner’s interest in automobile may be forfeited by reason of use to which automobile is put, even though owner did not know that it was to be put to such use

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).