153 N.C. App. 716 - State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1355
Relies on Koon v. United States · Soberon v. United States · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois · Abbate v. United States · Penn General Casualty Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Schnader
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.
“Each defendant was charged with drug offenses following the searches of their residences. The officers also seized currency from each defendant. On 1 May 2001, the district attorney however dismissed the criminal charges. While the exact date is not clear from the record, at some point subsequent to the search and prior to the hearing on the motion for return of property, the seized currency was turned over to the DEA for forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, photographs or other identification or analyses made of the property may be introduced at the time of the trial provided that the court determines that the introduction of such substitute evidence is not likely to substantially prejudice the rights of the defendant in the criminal trial.”
1 later decision 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.