Pickard v. City of Vero Beach

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pickard v. City of Vero Beach

629 So. 2d 957, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12508, 1993 WL 517324

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1993

DocketNo. 93-2240

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 629 So. 2d 957 (Pickard v. City of Vero Beach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pickard v. City of Vero Beach, 629 So. 2d 957, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12508, 1993 WL 517324 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

FASTRACK APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment holding that appellant’s vehicle was subject to forfeiture after appellant used the vehicle to travel to a drug store to pick up an illegal drug prescription. See Duckham v. State, 478 So.2d 347 (Fla.1985); In re Forfeiture of 1986 Ford PU, 619 So.2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). However, the parties agree the appellant is still entitled to have the trial court consider his claim that a forfeiture would violate the prohibition on excessive fines contained in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Austin v. United States, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993). We agree.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

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

FASTRACK APPEAL

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment holding that appellant’s vehicle was subject to forfeiture after appellant used the vehicle to travel to a drug store to pick up an illegal drug prescription. See Duckham v. State, 478 So.2d 347 (Fla.1985); In re Forfeiture of 1986 Ford PU, 619 So.2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). However, the parties agree the appellant is still entitled to have the trial court consider his claim that a forfeiture would violate the prohibition on excessive fines contained in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Austin v. United States, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993). We agree.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 So. 2d 957, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12508, 1993 WL 517324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pickard-v-city-of-vero-beach-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack