Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Benson, 833 P.2d 32.

36 citing documents.

State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
The standing requirements in forfeiture cases exist because the “danger of false claims in these cases is substantial.” In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency, (citation omitted).
In Re $200.00 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re $200.00 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In re $70,269.91 U.S. Currency (“Benson”), –21 (App. 1991).
Way v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Way v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In re $70,269.91 in US Currency
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver 375 P.3d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver 375 P.3d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Culver Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Notice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See 1810 E. Second Ave., 193 Ariz. at 6, 969 P.2d at 171; In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency, (“To contest a forfeiture action, one must be a party to the action and have standing.
State v. Parsons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Parsons Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 13-4311 and satisfies basic substantive concerns, requests an opportunity to amend the claim, the court should consider permitting the owner or interest holder to amend the claim to correct technical inadequacies.” –21, –38 (App. 1991).
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony 303 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony 303 P.3d 59 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Cwrency, -21 , -38 (App.1991) (citing relevant factors for allowing amendment).
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
§ 13-4311(D); In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency
STATE EX REL. GODDARD v. Ochoa 228 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. GODDARD v. Ochoa 228 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Citing In re $70,269.91 U.S. Currency, , he claims the court was required to consider certain enumerated factors “before deciding whether to allow a claim to proceed.” In that regard, he argues that the State long knew about his interest in the property and that it was not prejudiced by the delay in filing of one day.
State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds 213 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Copperstate Bail Bonds 213 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See United States v. Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($15,-500.00) U.S. Currency, 558 F.2d 1359, 1360 (9th Cir.1977) (holding that one who contests a forfeiture must be one who claims ownership of or an interest in the property seized); Matter of $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency, , (holding party to civil forfeiture acquires standing by alleging interest in property).
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Specifically, the State cites In re $70,269.91 , to support its contention, but that case addressed standing once a civil forfeiture action had commenced.
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
§ 13-4311(D) requires a court to hold "a hearing to adjudicate the validity of [a] claimed interest in the property.” , ("Once the owner or interest holder files a proper claim, he becomes a ‘claimant’ and is entitled to a hearing to adjudicate the validity of his interest.”).
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue 969 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue 969 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In re $70,269.91 in United States Currency (State v. Benson), -20 , -37 (App.1991); -53 , -91 (App.1994).
Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave. 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave. 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Cf. In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency (State v. Benson), , (release of res improper because in violation of court's order; court of appeals retained jurisdiction).
State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Cf. In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency (State v. Benson), (release of res improper because in violation of court’s order; court of appeals retained jurisdiction).
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan 884 P.2d 687 Ariz. 1994
Wohlstrom v. Buchanan 884 P.2d 687 Ariz. 1994
(only those who file claims may contest forfeiture).
Norriega v. MacHado 878 P.2d 1386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Norriega v. MacHado 878 P.2d 1386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Matter of $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency, , {Benson), this court explained the means by which a person may become a party in an in rem forfeiture action: To contest a forfeiture action, one must be a party to the action and have standing.