Limon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 607 So. 2d 23 - Jones v. STATE EX REL. MISSISSIPPI DPS (1991), Commonwealth v. Hanson (2013)
34 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 Bozman v. Office of Fin., Balto. Co. · 52 Md. App. 1 - Bozman v. OFFICE OF FIN., BALTO. CTY. · Kirkland v. State · Leach v. Cook, Commissioner of Revenues · Morley v. Fifty Cases of Whiskey
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In close proximity" simply means "very near." For that reason it has been said that the meaning of the term in such a statute is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Bozman v. Office of Finance of Baltimore County, 52 Md. App. 1 , 445 A.2d 1073 (Md. App. 1982), aff'd 296 Md. 492 , 463 A.2d 832 (1983). We agree with that approach and do not mean by this opinion to suggest rigid rules for fixing "close proximity" by a particular number of feet, by reference to particular rooms, or by any rule of thumb. Here the two plastic bags containing $1,770 were next to a bag of marihuana. The $3,000 was in two plastic bags in a kitchen drawer along with boxes of plastic bags and aluminum foil. Other drug paraphernalia were on the kitchen table; the cocaine vial was nearby. We think the preponderance of the evidence places all the money, not merely the $1,770, in close proximity to controlled substances or drug paraphernalia. That being true, all the money is presumed under the statute to be forfeitable. There is no burden on the State to show separately a specific intent that the money is to be used in exchange for drugs, because the statute provides that money found in close proximity to forfeitable articles is "presumed to be forfeitable."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) The following are subject to forfeiture: (3) All property which is used, or intended for use, as a container for property described in subsection (1) and (2) [includes controlled substances]; (4) All conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, for the purpose of sale or receipt of property described in subdivision (a)(1) or (2) [includes controlled substances] . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lewis v. State
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.