960 So. 2d 1270 - State v. Green’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Aside from the testimony that the claimant held a relatively large amount of cash at the time he possessed marijuana, the state's witnesses failed to make any other connection between the money and illegal drug activity. Thus, the evidence presented by the state was inadequate to show that the seized currency was derived from or intended to be used in an illegal narcotics transaction. Additionally, the testimony and documentary evidence produced by the claimant adequately negated the statutory inference relied upon by the state and the trial court. After reviewing the record in its entirety, we must conclude that the state failed to satisfy its statutory burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a substantial connection existed between the property seized and the illegal drug activity. Consequently, the trial court erred in ordering that the $12,780 in currency be forfeited to the state under the Forfeiture Act. Green, 42,253, p. 7, 960 So.2d at 1274 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 So. 3d 358 - State v. PROPERTY SEIZED FROM DAVEDE DAVILLIER $660.00

2. “The district attorney shall have the initial burden of showing the existence of probable cause for forfeiture of the property. If the state shows probable cause, the claimant has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant's interest in the property is not subject to forfeiture.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 9 So. 3d 358 - State v. PROPERTY SEIZED FROM DAVEDE DAVILLIER $660.00