64 Ohio App. 3d 379 - State v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘[A]n object illegally seized cannot in any way be used either as evidence or as the basis for jurisdiction. Therefore, evidence derived from a search in violation of the fourth amendment must be excluded at a forfeiture proceeding.’ (Emphasis added.) United States v. One 1978 Mercedes Benz, Four-Door Sedan (C.A.5, 1983), 711 F.2d 1297, 1303 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 99 Ohio App. 3d 380 - Ohio Department of Liquor Control v. Foe Aerie 0456

2. ““ ‘[T]he [quasi-criminal] nature of a forfeiture proceeding * * * and the reasons which led the Court to hold that the exclusionary rule * * * is obligatory upon the States * * * support the conclusion that the exclusionary rule is applicable to forfeiture proceedings such as the one involved here.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 99 Ohio App. 3d 380 - Ohio Department of Liquor Control v. Foe Aerie 0456