State v. Rewitzer’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2024
15 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 31 U.S.C. § 5316
Relies on Solem v. Helm · Austin v. United States · United States v. Bajakajian · Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. · State Farm Insurance Companies v. Seefeld
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) comparison of the contested fine with fines imposed for the commission of other crimes in the same jurisdiction, and (3) comparison of the contested fine with fines imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Hosep Bajakajian was leaving the United States from the Los Angeles International Airport when customs inspectors discovered that he was carrying $357,144 in currency. Bajakajian was charged with violating a federal statute requiring that person's transporting more than $10,000 in currency from the United States report that they are doing so. Federal statutes further provided that a court in imposing sentence on a person convicted of an offense in violation of [the statute] shall order that' the person forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, involved in such an offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Madden
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.