United States v. One Parcel Property Located at 427 & 429 Hall Street’s Empirical Analysis
74 F.3d 1165 · 1996
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bilzerian (1998), United States v. 817 N.E. 29th Drive (1999)
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions
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. § 1955 · 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 844 (§ 404 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Solem v. Helm · Harmelin v. Michigan · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · Austin v. United States · Weems v. United States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Given the offense for which the owner is being punished, is the fine (imposed by civil forfeiture) excessive? ... [T]he core of [this] proportionality review is a comparison of the severity of the fine with the seriousness of the underlying offense ...."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the appropriate inquiry with respect to the Excessive Fines Clause is, and is only, a proportionality test”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“... Jenkins’ property was forfeited on the strength of possession with intent to distribute three grams of cocaine within five hundred feet of a junior high school. In 1991, under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines, this was a Level 14 offense, punishable by fifteen to twenty one months in prison. A Level 14 offense also results in a mandatory fine ranging from $4000 to $40,000. Furthermore, putting aside the sentencing guidelines, the totality of circumstances underscores the seriousness of the offense. Jenkins was found with marijuana, large amounts of cash, bullets, and a .38 caliber gun, and he was quite close to .a junior high school. Given a possible sentence of twenty-one months in prison and a $40,000 fine, and given the additional factors at work in this case, we conclude that the forfeiture of a $65,000 piece of property does not violate the Excessive Fines Clause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.