Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 Ga. 24 - Howell v. State

Howell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Bajakajian · Bennis v. Michigan · Thorp v. State of Ga. · Bell v. Austin · 232 Ga. App. 886 - Salem v. State

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.

  1. “(1) the harshness, or gross disproportionality, of the forfeiture in comparison to the gravity of the offense, giving due regard to (a) the offense committed and its relation to other criminal activity, (b) whether the claimant falls within the class of persons for whom the statute was designed, (c) the punishments available, and (d) the harm caused by the claimant’s conduct; (2) the nexus between the property and the criminal offenses, including the deliberate nature of the use and the temporal and spatial extent of the use; and (3) the culpability of each claimant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he first factor requires a consideration of the inherent gravity of the offense compared with the harshness of the penalty. The second factor evaluates whether the property was close enough to the offense to render it guilty. The third part of the analysis is whether the criminal activity involving the defendant property was extensive in terms of time and/or spatial use. 9”
    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.