DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re United States Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, 902 P.2d 351.

68 citing documents.

  • Imo: 485,890.00 U.S. Currency Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Imo: 485,890.00 U.S. Currency Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    See Matter of U.S. Currency In the Amount of $315,900.00
  • Ochoa v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Ochoa v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    § 13-4310(B); In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00
  • Angulo-Murrieta v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Angulo-Murrieta v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    ¶9 “Seizure and attempted forfeiture of one’s property implicates protections under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments against unreasonable seizures and property deprivations without due process of law.” In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00
  • Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    we should resolve cases on non-constitutional grounds in all cases where it is possible and prudent to do so.” see also In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, (“Courts should decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible, avoiding resolution of constitutional issues, when other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions.”).
  • Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Yon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Yon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00
  • Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 6 (App. 2005) (explaining that courts should avoid constitutional issues “when other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions”) (quoting In re U.S. Currency of $315,900.00, ).
  • Williams v. Adot Risk Mgmt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Williams v. Adot Risk Mgmt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See KPNX-TV Channel 12 v. Stephens, ¶ 6 (App. 2014) (“[W]e need not resolve the dispute on constitutional grounds if ‘other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions.’”) (quoting In re $315,900.00, ).
  • State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See, e.g., In re $315,900.00, (finding sufficient nexus where hundreds of thousands of dollars in currency were found in proximity to only four ounces of marijuana); $24,000.00, 217 Ariz. at 205- 208, ¶¶ 22-31 (affirming forfeiture of funds contained in a package “shipped from an alleged drug-demand location to a drug-source locat
  • State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Havatone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 6 (App. 2005) (explaining that courts should avoid constitutional issues “when other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions” (quoting In re United States Currency of $315,900.00, )).
  • State v. Byrd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Byrd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 9, Matter of U.S. Currency In the Amount of $315,900.00
  • Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    stitution provides that cases “shall be administered openly,” Ariz. Const. art. II, § 11; see also Ariz. Const. art II, § 24 (an accused is entitled to a speedy public trial), we need not resolve the dispute on constitutional grounds if “other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions.” In re United States Currency of $315,900.00
  • In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency 335 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency 335 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    See Matter of U.S. Currency In the Amount of $315,900.00, -12, -55 (App. 1995) (distinguishing probable cause finding from state’s ability to meet substantive forfeiture statute).
  • Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    (“’Courts should decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible, avoiding resolution of constitutional issues, when other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions.’”), quoting In re $315,900.00 U.S. Currency
  • 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 U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00
  • In Re U.S. CURRENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • In Re U.S. CURRENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    See In re $315,900 U.S. Currency, -16, - 59 (App. 1995); (“We are obliged to affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any 3 reason.”).
  • Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    See In re United States Currency of $315,900.00, , ("avoiding resolution of constitutional issues, when other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions.”) 7 .
  • 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
    §§ 13-4301 to -4315 (2010), “property is subject to forfeiture if some other statute provides for such a remedy.” In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00
  • 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
    See In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900, , (“$315,900 ”) (stating burden of proof to show probable cause in civil forfeiture proceeding).
  • Segura v. Cunanan 196 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Segura v. Cunanan 196 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    constitutional requirements.” ¶ 13 , (quoting In re United States Currency of $315,900.00, , ).
  • In Re Twenty-Four ThouSand Dollars ($24,000) in United States Currency 171 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re Twenty-Four ThouSand Dollars ($24,000) in United States Currency 171 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    Citing In re United States Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, , the court found that “the totality of the circumstances fail to support more than a ‘mere suspicion’ that the property in question is subject to forfeiture.” The State timely appealed.
  • Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    Cf. In re United States Currency of $315,900.00, (even when facts “are highly suspicious,” “[s]urmise and supposition .
  • Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    tute or rule “mentions, much less, authorizes a species of security known as a ‘cash only’ bond.” ¶6 “Courts should decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible, avoiding resolution of constitutional issues, when other principles of law are controlling and the case can be decided without ruling on the constitutional questions.” In re United States Currency of $315,900.00, (“In general, .
  • Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa County 88 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa County 88 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00