State v. Sonnier’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[United States v.] Ursery [ 518 U.S. 267 , 116 S.Ct. 2135 , 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996)] reaffirmed and adopted the analytical framework announced in United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 , 104 S.Ct. 1099 , 79 L.Ed.2d 361 (1984). A two-part test is used. First, are the proceedings intended to be criminal or civil in nature? Second, are the proceedings so punitive in form and effect as to render them criminal, despite legislative intent to the contrary? To satisfy the latter prong of the two-part test, the “clearest proof’ is necessary to show that the sanction is criminal and not civil. Ursery , [518] U.S. at [289], 116 S.Ct. at 2147-48 . The answer to the initial inquiry is simple. Butler stated that “a driver’s license suspension is a civil, not punitive, measure.” Id. at 795 . Having so concluded, where, then, is the “clearest proof’ that the suspension proceedings may not legitimately be viewed as civil in nature and that they are, in fact, criminal? We have examined the record and the statutes, La.R.S. 32:667 and 668, and have not discerned the existence of that “clearest proof.” Ursery does not lend guidance to what constitutes “clearest proof.” Like Ursery , however, we have to admit that “... the fact that a [driver’s license suspension] has some connection to a criminal violation is far from the ‘clearest proof necessary to show that a proceeding is criminal.” Id. at [292], 116 S.Ct. at 2149 . The defendants submit attractive arguments which suggest”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 869 So. 2d 962 - City of Broussard v. Watkins