$31,400.00 v. State

Texas Supreme Court

$31,400.00 v. State

842 S.W.2d 646, 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 85, 1992 Tex. LEXIS 111, 1992 WL 280543

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 14, 1992

DocketNo. D-2698

StatusPublished

This text of 842 S.W.2d 646 ($31,400.00 v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

$31,400.00 v. State, 842 S.W.2d 646, 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 85, 1992 Tex. LEXIS 111, 1992 WL 280543 (Tex. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this forfeiture case, the trial court granted the claimant’s motion for summary judgment for, among other things, the State’s failure to request a hearing within 30 days of claimant’s answer, as formerly required by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4476-15, § 5.07(a), Act of May 28, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 429, 1973 Tex.Gen. Laws 1132, 1161, as amended, Act of May 25, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 227, § 13, 1985 Tex.Gen.Laws 1102, 1124. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a trial on the merits, stating that “[bjecause section 5.07(a) was directory and not mandatory, the State may not have a summary judgment entered against it for failing to request or obtain a time for a forfeiture hearing within 30 days after ... [the claimant’s] answer.” 828 S.W.2d 112, 114-15. In State v. $435,000, 842 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.1992) (per curiam), we held that former section 5.07(a) was mandatory and that the claimant “was entitled to a hearing within thirty days and a prompt trial setting, and would have been entitled to mandamus relief had the trial court refused either; but ... [the claimant] was not entitled to dismissal of the State’s action for the trial court’s failure to consider the case expeditiously.” Id. at 645. Petitioner’s application for writ of error is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this forfeiture case, the trial court granted the claimant’s motion for summary judgment for, among other things, the State’s failure to request a hearing within 30 days of claimant’s answer, as formerly required by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4476-15, § 5.07(a), Act of May 28, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 429, 1973 Tex.Gen. Laws 1132, 1161, as amended, Act of May 25, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 227, § 13, 1985 Tex.Gen.Laws 1102, 1124. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a trial on the merits, stating that “[bjecause section 5.07(a) was directory and not mandatory, the State may not have a summary judgment entered against it for failing to request or obtain a time for a forfeiture hearing within 30 days after ... [the claimant’s] answer.” 828 S.W.2d 112, 114-15. In State v. $435,000, 842 S.W.2d 642 (Tex.1992) (per curiam), we held that former section 5.07(a) was mandatory and that the claimant “was entitled to a hearing within thirty days and a prompt trial setting, and would have been entitled to mandamus relief had the trial court refused either; but ... [the claimant] was not entitled to dismissal of the State’s action for the trial court’s failure to consider the case expeditiously.” Id. at 645. Petitioner’s application for writ of error is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 S.W.2d 646, 36 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 85, 1992 Tex. LEXIS 111, 1992 WL 280543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/3140000-v-state-tex-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack