State v. Nunez’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Kersey v. Hatch (2010), State v. Elliott (2001)
122 state decisions
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 18 U.S.C. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Blockburger v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Michigan v. Long
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]nd when the indictment, information or affidavit upon which any person is convicted charges different offenses or different degrees of the same offense and a new trial is granted the accused, he [or she] may not again be tried for an offense or degree of the offense greater than the one of which he [or she] was convicted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Kirby · State v. Lynch“A. all controlled substances and all controlled substance analogs which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed or acquired in violation of the Controlled Substances Act; B. all raw materials, products and equipment of any kind including firearms which are used or intended for use in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing or exporting any controlled substance or controlled substance analog in violation of the Controlled Substances Act; C. all property which is used or intended for use as a container for property described in Subsection A or B of this section; D. all conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels, which are used or intended for use to transport or in any manner to facilitate the transportation for the purpose of sale of property described in Subsection A or B of this section; E. all books, records and research products and materials, including formulas, microfilm, tapes and data, which are used or intended for use in violation of the Controlled Substances Act; F. narcotics paraphernalia or money which is a fruit or instrumentality of the erime[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“To determine whether a sanction is remedial or punitive, a reviewing court begins by evaluating the government’s purpose in enacting the legislation, rather than evaluating the effect of the sanction on the defendant. Then the court must determine whether the sanction established by the legislation was sufficiently punitive in its effect that, on balance, the punitive effects outweigh the remedial effect. Although a civil penalty may cause a degree of punishment for the defendant, such a subjective effect cannot override the legislation’s primarily remedial purpose.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Kirby
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.