Ohio Supreme Court, 1991

State ex rel. Chandler v. Butler

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided August 28, 1991 · Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

61 Ohio St. 3d 592; 575 N.E.2d 833; 1991 Ohio LEXIS 2104

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. Davis v. Fuerst, 90553 (2-8-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Jenkins v. Cleveland (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
Abernathy v. Kral (District Court, N.D. Ohio 2018)
Cleveland v. Primm (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
Matthews v. Drug Enforcement Administration (6th Cir. 2015)
State v. Clayton (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Cleveland v. Cunningham (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Harris v. Mayfield Hts. (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
State v. Richard, Unpublished Decision (12-29-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. McCoy, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2001) (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Scott, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The undisputed facts show that the $4,815 in question was forfeited, pursuant to federal law. See Section 881, Title 21, U.S.Code. Under Article VI of the United States Constitution, the federal Constitution and laws of the United States are made “the supreme law of the land.” Since the money was forfeited under federal law, it is immaterial what R.C. 2933.43 states about its return. Relator’s claim, if any, is against the federal government.

*594Accordingly, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B), we convert respondents’ officer Butler's, Cincinnati Police Department’s, and city of Cincinnati’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, grant it and respondent Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney’s motion for summary judgment, and deny relator’s motion for summary judgment.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents in part.

Concurring in Part

Wright, J.,

dissenting in part. I concur with the court’s ruling on the prosecutor’s office’s motion for summary judgment, but I dissent from its ruling on Cincinnati’s motion for summary judgment.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.