Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. · Arkansas v. Sanders · Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission · One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following are subject to forfeiture and no property right exists in them: [[Image here]] (g) everything of value furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this chapter, all proceeds traceable to any violation of this chapter, and all moneys, ... used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The following are subject to forfeiture and no property right exists in them: ...; (g) everything of value furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this chapter, all proceeds traceable to any violation of this chapter, and all moneys, ... used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this chapter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.