State v. Catlett’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably In Re Detention of Turay (1999), State v. Nunez (1999)
28 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. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Benton v. Maryland · Boyd v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · United States v. Halper
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.
“`Seizure and forfeiture are civil processes and are independent of the outcome of any criminal charges that might be brought against the owner of the property'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The categorization of a particular statute as civil or criminal is largely a matter of statutory construction. The Supreme Court has adopted a 2-part analysis: First, we have set out to determine whether Congress, in establishing the penalizing mechanism, indicated either expressly or impliedly a preference for one label or the other. Second, where Congress has indicated an intention to establish a civil penalty, we have inquired further whether the statutory scheme was so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate that intention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Winchester v. Stein“[t]he fact that the basis for the civil forfeiture may be criminal activity does not render the forfeiture proceeding either criminal or a resulting forfeiture punishment for double jeopardy purposes. The Ursery court held that such linkage was insufficient to render the statute punitive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Winchester v. Stein
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.