Smith v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.3d 879 · 1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably United States of America v. Real Property Located at Santa Barbara Drive (2001), United States v. Randy (1996)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Teague v. Lane · United States v. Frady · United States v. Halper · Austin 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ajlthough in Austin the Court considered the forfeiture of property used to facilitate the drug trade under [21 U.S.C.] § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7), defendants such as Smith have claimed that the reasoning applies as well to items forfeited under § 881(a)(6) as proceeds of drug transactions. The claim is that “proceeds” forfeitures constitute punishment if they are out of proportion to the government’s or society’s loss. Can this be so? No. The reason the answer is “no” is that proceeds forfeitures can never be out of proportion to the “loss” suffered by the government or society....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Not only are drug proceeds inherently proportional to the damages caused by the illegal activity ... but also one never acquires a property right to proceeds, which include not only cash but also property secured with the proceeds of illegal activity----[Forfeiture of drug proceeds is not punishment, but is remedial in nature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]orfeiture of proceeds cannot be considered punishment, and thus, subject to the excessive fines clause, as it simply parts the owner from the fruits of the criminal activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.