Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 702 N.E.2d 771 - State v. Klein

State v. Klein’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
3
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2013

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

110199820002010decided

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. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Halper · Austin v. United States · United States v. Ursery · Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch

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

  1. “forfeiting Klein's vehicle served only the goals of punishment and served no remedial function ....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Davis v. State · O'CONNOR v. State
  2. “the expenditure of law enforcement resources”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. C.R.M. v. State · O'CONNOR v. State
  3. “"The United States would do well to seek imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture in one proceeding. When choosing between civil and criminal forfeitures, the prosecutor will have to recall that after Halper, Austin, and Kurth Ranch, the nomenclature `civil' does not carry much weight. We must consider whether, by beginning separate, but parallel proceedings, the prosecutor has freed [the defendant] from imprisonment."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. C.R.M. v. State · CRM 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.