State v. Deville’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Halper · United States v. Dixon · Grady v. Corbin
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although not specifically deciding a double jeopardy claim in Austin , the Court's reasoning makes it clear that double jeopardy applies in [forfeiture cases]”). Contra State v. Johnson, 632 So.2d 817, 818 (La.Ct.App. 4th Cir.), writ granted, 642 So.2d 1302 (La.1994) (rejecting Austin analysis for Halper “disproportionate”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Davis
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.