Stratemeyer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When one puts these two lines of cases together, an inescapable conclusion emerges. Halper , as clarified in Austin , establishes that, if a civil penalty or sanction has any punitive aspect to it, it constitutes punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Austin mandates' and Aravanis ... directly holds that a forfeiture under art. 27, § 297 constitutes punishment for purposes of at least the Maryland counterpart to the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, if not the Federal provision itself. Upon this reasoning and upon specific pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject the State’s argument that a forfeiture of non-contraband property under § 297 may constitute punishment under the Eighth Amendment but not under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth. The most telling fallacy in that argument under the current case law is the fact that the “the Supreme Court used Halper’s definition of ‘punishment’ under the Double Jeopardy Clause to define ‘punishment’ for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.” We hold, therefore, that a forfeiture under § 297(b)(4) and (b)(6) constitutes punishment for double jeopardy purposes and declare that anything to the contrary said in Allen v. State, [ 91 Md.App. 775 , 605 A.2d 994 (1992) ], is hereby overruled. 6”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 Md. App. 456 - Jones v. State

2. “As we indicated, none of the evidence presented at the forfeiture hearing is in the record before us, so, with respect to the alternate ground relied on by the court, we do not know whether the truck was used to acquire, transport, store, or distribute any of the drugs imported, possessed, or distributed by appellant on September 11, 1992. There was certainly no such finding by the court, either when it ordered the forfeiture or when it denied [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss the criminal charges.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 Md. App. 456 - Jones v. State

3. “Halper , of course, did not involve a forfeiture statute; it merely set forth the required analytical framework for determining when a sanction ordinarily regarded as civil in nature may constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 111 Md. App. 456 - Jones v. State