Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 Wash. 2d 90 - State v. Clark

124 Wash. 2d 90 - State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
4
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 128 Wash. 2d 262 - State v. Cole (1995), State v. Nunez (1999)

62 state decisions

3701994200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · North Carolina v. Pearce · Benton v. Maryland · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Missouri v. Hunter

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or are intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of [controlled substances] . . . .” Washington law has always allowed the return of proceeds of a crime. See State v. Cramer, 167 Wash. 159, 163 , 8 P.2d 1004 (1932) (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “used with the knowledge of the owner for the manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivery, importing, or exporting of any controlled substance . . . .” Second, it allows forfeiture of real property”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[A] forfeiture statute must be solely remedial to escape characterization as `punishment' under the federal double jeopardy clause.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.