DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang, 463 P.2d 827.

49 citing documents.

  • In Re Kory L. 979 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Kory L. 979 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    She relies on In re One 1965 Ford Mustang, , in which the State sought forfeiture of a parent’s vehicle because her child had transported drugs in it.
  • Fitzgerald v. Superior Court 845 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Fitzgerald v. Superior Court 845 P.2d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    In re One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • State ex rel. Corbin v. Valentine 814 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • In Re One 1983 Toyota 814 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • In Re One 1983 Toyota 814 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    See In re One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • State ex rel. Corbin v. Valentine 814 P.2d 356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    See In re One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • State v. Barrett 721 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Barrett 721 P.2d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    While the state correctly summarizes the holding in Blue Ford Pickup, we question whether that case is good law in light of our supreme court’s concern for the rights of an “innocent owner” as discussed in Matter of One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • Loughran v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA 699 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1985
  • Loughran v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA 699 P.2d 1287 Ariz. 1985
    In re One 1965 Ford Mustang, , (emphasis added).
  • Nunez v. State 688 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Nunez v. State 688 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    In the [In re One 1965] Ford Mustang [ , ] case, the court observed that the statute, construed literally, permitted the interest of an innocent owner to be forfeited, but held that the legislature intended to permit such an innocent person to prove lack of scienter.
  • State v. Hansen 639 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Hansen 639 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    However, in the case of In the Matter of One 1965 Ford Mustang, , our supreme court held that an automobile may not be forfeited pursuant to these statutes unless the owner had some connection with the narcotics violation, or intended to permit such use of the vehicle, or had knowledge it was so used.
  • City of Sierra Vista v. Atlantic Bank of Jacksonville 631 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • City of Sierra Vista v. Atlantic Bank of Jacksonville 631 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    See In re One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • State v. Campbell 606 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Campbell 606 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1980
    *523 This Court, in In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang, , held that vehicle forfeiture under A.R.S.
  • Torres v. State 595 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Torres v. State 595 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    In view of In re One 1965 Ford Mustang, , an additional issue which should be raised by answer is whether the registered owner had knowledge of the presence of the illegal substance.
  • Zisser v. State 592 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Matter of One 1974 Mercedes Benz, Etc. 592 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Matter of One 1974 Mercedes Benz, Etc. 592 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    As was stated in In re One 1965 Ford Mustang, , : "Under the present state of constitutional development, there can be no question but that forfeiture of an automobile is punishment for a criminal offense.
  • Zisser v. State 592 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    As was stated in In re One 1965 Ford Mustang, , : “Under the present state of constitutional development, there can be no question but that forfeiture of an automobile is punishment for a criminal offense.
  • Parker v. State 591 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Matter of One 1965 Ford Econoline Van, Etc. 591 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Matter of One 1965 Ford Econoline Van, Etc. 591 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    In Re One 1962 Volkswagen Sedan, Motor No. 4230506, Arizona License No. JGR 254.
  • State v. Pyle 586 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Pyle 586 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    § 36-1041 provides: “The interest of the legal owner or owners of record of any vehicle used to transport unlawfully a narcotic drug, or in which a narcotic drug is unlawfully kept, deposited or concealed, or in which a narcotic is unlawfully possessed by an occupant, shall be forfeited to the state.” In the case of In re One 1965 Ford Mustang, , our Supreme Court stated: “We accordingly hold that an automobile may not be forfeited under Section 36-1041, A.R.S., et seq., unless the owner has som
  • Leftridge v. State 573 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Leftridge v. State 573 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    In re One 1965 Ford Mustang, Motor No. 5R07A242628, License No. HGH-968
  • State Ex Rel. Berger v. McCarthy 548 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1976
  • State Ex Rel. Berger v. McCarthy 548 P.2d 1158 Ariz. 1976
    In re One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • State v. Swanson 538 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Swanson 538 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    As was stated in In re One 1965 Ford Mustang, , : “Under the present state of constitutional development, there can be no question but that forfeiture of an automobile is punishment for a criminal offense.
  • Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 521 P.2d 1119 Ariz. 1974
  • Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc. 521 P.2d 1119 Ariz. 1974
    In re One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • State v. Buchanan 518 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Buchanan 518 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1974
    In re One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
    In re One 1965 Ford Mustang
  • Arizona R. C. I. A. Lands, Inc. v. Ainsworth 515 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Arizona R. C. I. A. Lands, Inc. v. Ainsworth 515 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    In Re One 1965 Mustang, , State v. Also, 11 Ariz.App.
  • In Re One 1962 Volkswagen Sedan, Motor No. 4230506 464 P.2d 338 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Cook 464 P.2d 338 Ariz. 1970
  • In Re One 1962 Volkswagen Sedan, Motor No. 4230506 464 P.2d 338 Ariz. 1970
    In State v. Lewis [In re One 1965 Ford Mustang], , [No. 9802-PR], which is a companion case to this, we held: "* * * that an automobile may not be forfeited under § 36-1041, A.R.S., et seq., unless the owner had some connection with the unlawful act, or intended to permit the automobile to be used by a third person in the commission of the unlawful act
  • State v. Cook 464 P.2d 338 Ariz. 1970
    In State v. Lewis [In re One 1965 Ford Mustang], , [No. 9802-PR], which is a companion case to this, we held: “ * * * that an automobile may not be forfeited under § 36-1041, A.R.S., et seq., unless the owner had some connection with the unlawful act, or intended to permit the automobile to be used by a third person in the commission of the unlawful act