Fant v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
28 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Halper · Austin v. United States · Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch · United States v. Ward · Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[A] civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term." Halper , at 448, 109 S.Ct. at 1902 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fant v. State · Arnold v. State“criminal fines, civil penalties, civil forfeitures, and taxes all share certain features,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fant v. State · Ex Parte Ariza“Fant, id. The Court of Appeals then concluded appellant had already been punished for his criminal conduct by the forfeiture of his cash and cellular telephone, and further punishment of appellant for his criminal conduct was barred”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fant 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.