State v. McCrary’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1996
12 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
Relies on Casone v. State · Findlay v. Monroe · Caneperi v. State · Monroe v. State
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The exclusive remedy for recovery of property thus seized as contraband in violation of the Game and Fish Laws of this State is contained in Sections 51-707 through 51-715, T.C.A.” jji ⅜ jji jjc J¡C “Section 51-709, T.C.A., provides that if any one wishes to claim this property that they may do so at any time within 10 days from its seizure by filing with the Director of the Game and Fish Commission at Nashville a claim where it is heard by the Director. Section 51-712, T.C.A. provides that if after the hearing the Director decides against the claimant the cause may be appealed by the common law writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of the County in which the property is seized. Section 51-715, T.C.A. provides for the procedure to be followed under such a claim and provides that: 'and the court shall not have jurisdiction to interfere therewith by replevin, injunction, supersedeas, or in any other manner except as herein provided.’ This quoted language is in reference and provides directly that the sole remedy of the claimant for this property is through the procedure above outlined that is by filing a claim with the Director of the Game and Fish Commission which in turn may be appealed.” jjc jji ⅜ Jji Jji Jji “It thus seems to us that the trial judge in this case was wrong or committed error when he adjudged that the seized property is not contraband. The Act gave him no such authority. Ordinarily in this type of case a proceeding to recover property seized as contraband ”
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.