Serrano v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate Commonly Known as 916 Douglas Avenue · United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · Katner v. State · United States v. One Parcel of Real Property with the Building Appurtenances and Improvements Known As 384-390 West Broadway South Boston Massachusetts L · Katner 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Money ... found near or on a person who is committing, attempting to commit, or conspiring to commit any of the following offenses shall be admitted into evidence in an action under this chapter as prima facie evidence that the money, negotiable instrument, security, or other thing of value is property that has been used or was to have been used to facilitate the violation of a criminal statute or is the proceeds of the violation of a criminal statute: (1) IC 35-48-4-1 (dealing in or manufacturing cocaine or a narcotic drug). (2) IC 35-48-4-1.1 (dealing in methamphetamine). (3) IC 35-48-4-2 (dealing in a schedule I, II, or III controlled substance). (4) IC 35-48-4-3 (dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance). (5) IC 35-48-4-4 (dealing in a schedule V controlled substance) as a Level 4 felony. (6) IC 35-48-4-6 (possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug) as a Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 felony. (7) IC 35-48-4-6.1 (possession of methamphetamine) as a Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 felony. (8) IC 35-48-4-10 (dealing in marijuana, has oil, hashish, or salvia) as a Level 5 felony. (9) IC 35-48-4-10.5 (dealing in a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance) as a Level 5 felony or Level 6. felony (or as a Class C felony or Class D felony under IC 35-48-4-10 before its amendment in 2013).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In rem forfeiture is an ancient concept under which courts obtained jurisdiction over property when it was virtually impossible to seek justice against property owners guilty of violating maritime law because they were overseas. Civil forfeiture traces to ancient Roman and medieval English law; both made objects used to violate the law subject to forfeiture to the sovereign. Civil forfeiture is no longer tethered to difficulties in obtaining personal jurisdiction over an individual. It now serves as one of the most potent weapons in the judicial armamentarium[.] Civil forfeiture is a leading method for imposing economic sanctions against narcotics traffickers. Today, all states have statutory provisions for some form of asset forfeiture, and there are more than four hundred federal forfeiture statutes relating to various federal crimes. An important feature of many of these statutes is characterization of the process as civil forfeiture under which (by contrast to criminal forfeiture) a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime-or even charged-to lose permanently their cash, car, home or other property. The relative ease of effecting such forfeiture and the disposition of the assets have become a matter of public note.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]his 'requires more than an incidental or fortuitous connection between the property and the underlying offense.'”
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.