Smith v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 31 U.S.C. § 5316
Relies on United States v. Halper · United States v. Ursery · Helvering v. Mitchell · United States v. Bajakajian · United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive, the trial court must determine that “the property is sufficiently tainted by the criminal act to be subject to forfeiture.” It must also “determine that the particular forfeiture is not grossly disproportionate to the particular offense.” “The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality.” “Among the factors relevant to this determination [of proportionality] are the gravity of the offense, the potential penalties, the actual sentence, sentences imposed for similar crimes in this and other jurisdictions, and the effect of the forfeiture on innocent third parties.” (Citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. Commonwealth“Title to all property, including all interests in the property, forfeit under this section vests in the Commonwealth on the commission of the act or omission giving rise to forfeiture under this section together with the proceeds of the property after the time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“vehicles . . . which are used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation”
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.