Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 14 N.J. 446 - State v. Link

State v. Link’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
June 2002
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 6 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2002 · most notably Spagnuolo v. Bonnet (1954), 155 N.J. Super. 129 - Houman v. Mayor & Coun. Bor. Pompton Lakes (1977)

6 federal appellate · 6 district · 15 state decisions

100195419601970198019902000decided

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

Relies on Grogan v. DeSapio · State v. Western Union Telegraph Co. · State v. Morano · Grobart v. Grobart · 3 N.J. Super. 22 - Krug v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson Co.

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

  1. ““Whenever any money, currency or cash shall be seized or captured by the police, constabulary or other officer in connection with any arrest for violation of or conspiracy to violate any gambling law of this state, the said money, currency or cash shall be deemed prima facie to be contraband of law as a gambling device, or as part of a gambling operation, and it shall be unlawful to return the said money, currency or cash to the person or persons claiming to own the same, or to any other person, except in the circumstances and manner hereinafter provided.” (Emphasis added.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The proof seems to indicate that if it is anybody’s money it is Link’s money, and it was money used either as the proceeds of or in connection with, set apart and segregated, as part of his gambling operations in this county, Cumberland County and Passaic County, and I think the conclusion is inevitable then that the money is forfeited to the sole use of the County of Bergen.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Section 10 covers its return to the rightful owner if an acquittal occurs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.