No. 93-3350’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
9 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5390, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9185 (1995), United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (1995)
9 district · 11 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
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Griffith v. Kentucky · Austin v. United States · James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia · United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“monetary value of the property, the extent of criminal activity associated with the property, the fact that the property was a residence, the effect of forfeiture on innocent occupants of the residence, including children, [and] any other factors that an excessive fine analysis might require”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[suppression of evidence is an appropriate remedy for Fourth Amendment violations because the purpose of the illegal seizure was to preserve or to acquire evidence. However, suppression of seized evidence provides no remedy at all when the pur- . pose of the seizure is not to acquire evidence but to assert a possessory interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“strongly worded preference for retroactivity of civil decisions”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.