Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2015
2 federal appellate · 14 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 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Idaho v. Wright · Penn General Casualty Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Schnader · Idaho v. Wright · Scarabin v. Drug Enforcement Administration · Eggleston v. Colorado
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Through informal arrangements, local police departments agree to notify the DEA when they seize property which may be subject to forfeiture pursuant to federal narcotics laws. Upon a DEA request, the local police department will transfer the property to the DEA, which will treat the property as if it had been seized by federal authorities. That is, the DEA will ‘adopt’ the seizure. The DEA will then institute federal forfeiture proceedings against the property. Once the forfeiture is complete, the DEA is authorized to ‘split the pot’ with the cooperating local police department.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Finding that [the seized money] was never out of the legal control of the state court and thus was never in the possession of the federal government, we conclude that the DEA could not have found it forfeit. The administrative forfeiture of which the DEA informed [the defendant] is a non-entity. If the DEA still insists on bringing forfeiture proceedings against [the defendant's] funds, it must first seek a turn over order from the state court, or wait until that court relinquishes control over the res and then proceed anew...." Scarabin, supra, at 995 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tracy 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.