State v. Greer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 40 state decisions

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

1. ““Once the basis of forfeiture under § 297 is established by a preponderance of the evidence, the remedy is prescribed by law — loss of the seized vehicle. And it is no more permissible to deny forfeiture under these circumstances than it would be to order a debtor to repay a reduced amount than is lawfully due because extenuating circumstances indicate that requiring the full sum to be paid would create great hardship. The statute’s mandate must be obeyed for it is not a penalty imposed as part of the criminal punishment that can be invoked at the discretion of the trial judge. If the Legislature had desired to make this forfeiture discretionary it could have so provided. . . . “Under the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act the duties and powers of the courts are narrowly limited in forfeiture proceedings. Once the seizing authority decides to seek forfeiture, the court’s only responsibilities are to require proof that the vehicle seized was ‘used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment of [controlled dangerous substances] ’; determine that no statutory exceptions are applicable; and insure the adherence to due process requirements. ... In the case now before us, our conclusion is in accord with the federal and state authorities that have decided the issue. In fact, we have been unable to find a case holding that, in the absence of statutory permission, discretion is vested in the judicia”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prince George's County v. One (1) 1969 Opel

2. ““The first [error] is that the petition here cannot be filed and granted as an adjunct to a criminal case. Forfeiture, unless specifically provided otherwise by statute, is a civil in rem proceeding, separate from any criminal action and it is of little significance whether there is a criminal conviction. Lilienthal’s Tobacco v. United States, 97 U. S. 237 , 24 L. Ed. 901 (1878) ; Prince George’s County v. Blue Bird Cab Company, Inc., 263 Md. 655 , 284 A. 2d 203 (1971). In the same vein the innocence of the owner of the vehicle is no defense. Prince George’s County v. Blue Bird, supra. But see United States v. U. S. Coin and Currency, 401 U. S. 715 , 91 S. Ct. 1041 , 28 L.Ed.2d 434 (1971). * * * “. . . In this case neither the State, County or any other possibly interested party was given notice upon which this petition could have been challenged. Without such notice, the order that was issued on the basis of that petition clearly violates not only the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution but also Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and is therefore invalid. Burns v. Midland . . . [ 247 Md. 548 , 234 A. 2d 446 (1968)].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prince George's County v. One (1) 1969 Opel

3. ““The second ground whence error springs concerns naming the State of Maryland as the sole respondent in this controversy. Article 27, § 297(c) [with respect to money or currency, now Art. 27, § 297(b)(6)] provides that: ‘Property taken or detained under this section shall be deemed to be in the custody of the person who seized said property ... ’ (emphasis added). This is amplified in § (d) which states: ‘Whenever property is forfeited under this subheading, the political subdivision in which such property was seized, or, if the property was seized by State authorities, the State may ... ’ dispose of it according to the provisions of the statute. Here, the Montgomery County Police seized the car and according to the statute the County, not the State, has custody of that vehicle and authority to control its disposition. Montgomery County therefore is the only necessary party to this action.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 90 Md. App. 300 - State v. Walls