Case Name: State of Connecticut v. Victor Holloway
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1991-10-29
Citations: 26 Conn. App. 910
Docket Number: 9868
Parties: State of Connecticut v. Victor Holloway
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 910–910

Head Matter:
State of Connecticut v. Victor Holloway
(9868)
Dupont, C. J., O’Connell and Heiman, Js.
Argued September 30
decision released October 29, 1991
Ralph C. Crozier, with whom, on the brief, was Allan Friedman, law student intern, for the appellant (defendant).
James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Mary Galvin, state’s attorney, and Frank McQuade, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appelle (state).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The state concedes that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the defendant's property forfeited because of the state's failure to initiate proper proceedings under the drug forfeiture statute. General Statutes § 54-36a et seq.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to grant the defendant's motion for the return of the seized property.