City of Eugene v. 1979 280ZX, Datsun, Oregon License No. TCL 860

Court of Appeals of Oregon

City of Eugene v. 1979 280ZX, Datsun, Oregon License No. TCL 860

908 P.2d 849, 138 Or. App. 371, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 1772

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 27, 1995

Docket16-93-05896; CA A87776

StatusPublished

This text of 908 P.2d 849 (City of Eugene v. 1979 280ZX, Datsun, Oregon License No. TCL 860) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Eugene v. 1979 280ZX, Datsun, Oregon License No. TCL 860, 908 P.2d 849, 138 Or. App. 371, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 1772 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s property was forfeited in a proceeding that followed his criminal conviction. At the forfeiture proceeding, he claimed that the forfeiture was unconstitutional as an excessive fine/punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Austin v. United States, 509 US_, 113 S Ct 2801, 125 L Ed 2d 488 (1993). On appeal, he has abandoned that argument. Instead, he argues that the forfeiture proceeding violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy and relies on, inter alia, U.S. v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F3d 1210 (9th Cir 1994). Appellant did not make that argument to the trial court, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s property was forfeited in a proceeding that followed his criminal conviction. At the forfeiture proceeding, he claimed that the forfeiture was unconstitutional as an excessive fine/punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Austin v. United States, 509 US_, 113 S Ct 2801, 125 L Ed 2d 488 (1993). On appeal, he has abandoned that argument. Instead, he argues that the forfeiture proceeding violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy and relies on, inter alia, U.S. v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F3d 1210 (9th Cir 1994). Appellant did not make that argument to the trial court, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

908 P.2d 849, 138 Or. App. 371, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 1772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-eugene-v-1979-280zx-datsun-oregon-license-no-tcl-860-orctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack