739 So. 2d 49 - Garrett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘A court acquires jurisdiction over the property in an in rem proceeding when the res is validly seized and brought within the control of the court. [Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80 ] at 84-85[, 113 S.Ct. 554 , 121 L.Ed.2d 474 (1992) ]. In Alabama, the res is validly seized either pursuant to “process issued by [a] court, ” see § 20-2-93(b), Ala.Code 1975; Brown & Hagin Co. v. McCullough, 194 Ala. 638 , 69 So. 924 (1915), or pursuant to one of the exceptions listed in § 20-2-93(b)(l)-(4), Ala.Code 1975.... In order to have subject matter jurisdiction in a forfeiture case, “the court must have actual or constructive control of the res when an in rem forfeiture suit is initiated.” Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. at 86 [, 113 S.Ct. 554 ], “[J]urisdiction, once vested, is not divested.” Id. at 84 [, 113 S.Ct. 554 ].’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 So. 3d 1251 - Alexander v. City of Birmingham

2. “Based on our holding ... that the res was validly seized by [state] law enforcement officers pursuant to process issued by a [state] court ... we conclude that the [state] court had subject matter jurisdiction over the property at issue here.”). The United States, citing to a 2009 Alabama civil appellate court case, contends that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Currency, in United States $178,858.00