31 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025“Civil forfeiture proceedings serve, at least in part, to punish the owner of the property subject to forfeiture and are therefore subject to the excessive fines clause, even though the forfeiture may also serve a remedial purpose.” People v. One 2005 Acura RSX, 2017 IL App (4th) 160595, ¶ 19 (citing Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 618 (1993)). 2016App. 3d 873, 875 (2005) (citing Austin, 509 U.S. at 618 ). ¶ 28 A forfeiture violates the excessive fines clause if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. | 8 | 24 |
United States v. Bajakajiangreen2 sentences2018Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 332 -34 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 ; Von Hofe v. United States , 492 F.3d 175 , 184 (2d Cir. 2007). ¶ 18 Although this court has not reviewed an issue involving the excessive fines clause since the Supreme Court decided Bajakajian , in Waller , 162 Ill. 2d at 90 , 204 Ill.Dec. 759 , 642 N.E.2d 460 , we relied on then-emerging federal case law to conclude that an excessive fine clause challenge required a fact-intensive, case-by-case approach. 2018Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 332 -34 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 ; Von Hofe v. United States , 492 F.3d 175 , 184 (2d Cir. 2007). ¶ 18 Although this court has not reviewed an issue involving the excessive fines clause since the Supreme Court decided Bajakajian , in Waller , 162 Ill. 2d at 90 , 204 Ill.Dec. 759 , 642 N.E.2d 460 , we relied on then-emerging federal case law to conclude that an excessive fine clause challenge required a fact-intensive, case-by-case approach. | 5 | 10 |
Sandra Towers, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, and Robert Sturdivant v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2015Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 306 (2008). ¶ 27 Sloper cites Towers v. City of Chicago, 173 F.3d 619, 624 (7th Cir. 1999), where the plaintiffs also raised an excessive fines claim based on the same ordinance asserting the civil penalty bore no relationship to their culpability as innocent owners of vehicles that were used without their knowledge for prohibited purposes. 2015App. 3d at 438 ; see Towers, 173 F.3d at 624 (explaining that the excessive fines clause applies to civil penalties if they serve the purpose of deterrence or retribution (citing Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 610 (1993))). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Real Property Located at 6625 Zumirez Drivegreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Zumirez Drive, 845 F. Supp. at 733 ; People v. One 2005 Acura RSX, 2017 IL App (4th) 160595, ¶¶ 20-32 ; People v. 1998 Lexus GS 300, 402 Ill. 2018See, e.g. , Zumirez Drive , 845 F.Supp. at 733 ; People v. One 2005 Acura RSX , 2017 IL App (4th) 160595 , ¶¶ 20-32, 413 Ill.Dec. 178 , 77 N.E.3d 783 ; People v. 1998 Lexus GS 300 , 402 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinezgreen2 sentences2014She argues that the Apprendi rule “logically embraces” civil enforcement proceedings, including forfeiture proceedings secondary to criminal proceedings, citing in support Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (finding civil forfeiture constituted punishment for an offense under the eighth amendment’s excessive-fines clause), and Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 165-66 (1963) (deprivation of citizenship for draft dodgers was a punishment subject to full procedural protections afforded criminal defendants). 2014She argues that the Apprendi rule “logically embraces” civil enforcement proceedings, including forfeiture proceedings secondary to criminal proceedings, citing in support Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (finding civil forfeiture constituted punishment for an offense under the eighth amendment’s excessive-fines clause), and Kennedy v. Mendoza- Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 165-66 (1963) (deprivation of citizenship for draft dodgers was a punishment subject to full procedural protections afforded criminal defendants). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ratliffgreen2 sentences1999Ed. 2d at 565 , 116 S. Ct. at 2146 ; accord Ratliff , 282 Ill. 1999Ed. 2d at 567 , 116 S. Ct. at 2146 ; accord Ratliff, 282 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People ex rel. Waller v. 1989 Ford F350 Truckgreen2 sentences2018Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 332 -34 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 ; Von Hofe v. United States , 492 F.3d 175 , 184 (2d Cir. 2007). ¶ 18 Although this court has not reviewed an issue involving the excessive fines clause since the Supreme Court decided Bajakajian , in Waller , 162 Ill. 2d at 90 , 204 Ill.Dec. 759 , 642 N.E.2d 460 , we relied on then-emerging federal case law to conclude that an excessive fine clause challenge required a fact-intensive, case-by-case approach. 2018Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 332 -34 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 ; Von Hofe v. United States , 492 F.3d 175 , 184 (2d Cir. 2007). ¶ 18 Although this court has not reviewed an issue involving the excessive fines clause since the Supreme Court decided Bajakajian , in Waller , 162 Ill. 2d at 90 , 204 Ill.Dec. 759 , 642 N.E.2d 460 , we relied on then-emerging federal case law to conclude that an excessive fine clause challenge required a fact-intensive, case-by-case approach. | 1 | 4 |
People v. One 2005 Acura RSXgreen2 sentences2025“Civil forfeiture proceedings serve, at least in part, to punish the owner of the property subject to forfeiture and are therefore subject to the excessive fines clause, even though the forfeiture may also serve a remedial purpose.” People v. One 2005 Acura RSX, 2017 IL App (4th) 160595, ¶ 19 (citing Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 618 (1993)). 2018See, e.g. , Zumirez Drive , 845 F.Supp. at 733 ; People v. One 2005 Acura RSX , 2017 IL App (4th) 160595 , ¶¶ 20-32, 413 Ill.Dec. 178 , 77 N.E.3d 783 ; People v. 1998 Lexus GS 300 , 402 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
Von Hofe v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 332-34 ; Von Hofe v. United States, 492 F.3d 175, 184 (2d Cir. 2007). ¶ 18 Although this court has not reviewed an issue involving the excessive fines clause since the Supreme Court decided Bajakajian, in Waller, 162 Ill. 2d at 90 , we relied on then-emerging federal case law to conclude that an excessive fine clause challenge required a fact-intensive, case-by-case approach. 2018Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 332 -34 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 ; Von Hofe v. United States , 492 F.3d 175 , 184 (2d Cir. 2007). ¶ 18 Although this court has not reviewed an issue involving the excessive fines clause since the Supreme Court decided Bajakajian , in Waller , 162 Ill. 2d at 90 , 204 Ill.Dec. 759 , 642 N.E.2d 460 , we relied on then-emerging federal case law to conclude that an excessive fine clause challenge required a fact-intensive, case-by-case approach. | 1 | 2 |
People v. 1998 LEXUS GS 300green2 sentences2018See, e.g., Zumirez Drive, 845 F. Supp. at 733 ; People v. One 2005 Acura RSX, 2017 IL App (4th) 160595, ¶¶ 20-32 ; People v. 1998 Lexus GS 300, 402 Ill. 2018See, e.g. , Zumirez Drive , 845 F.Supp. at 733 ; People v. One 2005 Acura RSX , 2017 IL App (4th) 160595 , ¶¶ 20-32, 413 Ill.Dec. 178 , 77 N.E.3d 783 ; People v. 1998 Lexus GS 300 , 402 Ill. | 1 | 2 |
Napleton v. Village of Hinsdalegreen1 sentence2015Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 306 (2008). ¶ 27 Sloper cites Towers v. City of Chicago, 173 F.3d 619, 624 (7th Cir. 1999), where the plaintiffs also raised an excessive fines claim based on the same ordinance asserting the civil penalty bore no relationship to their culpability as innocent owners of vehicles that were used without their knowledge for prohibited purposes. | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Waller v. Seeburg Slot MacHinesgreen2 sentences1996Seeburg, 267 Ill. 1996See Seeburg, 267 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. One Parcel Of Property Located At 508 Depot Street, Garretson, Minnehaha County, South Dakotagreen1 sentence1994Ed. 2d 488, 506 , 113 S. a. 2801, 2812, quoting One Parcel of Property, 964 F.2d at 818.) Austin, after all, was decided under the eighth amendment’s excessive fines clause. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Ursery
green
2 sentences1999The United States Supreme Court noted in Ursery that the excessive fines clause of the eighth amendment is not parallel to or related to the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment and declined "to import the [eighth amendment] analysis into our double jeopardy jurisprudence." Ursery , 518 U.S. at 287 , 135 L. 1999The United States Supreme Court noted in Ursery that the excessive fines clause of the eighth amendment is not parallel to or related to the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment and declined "to import the [eighth amendment] analysis into our double jeopardy jurisprudence." Ursery , 518 U.S. at 287 , 135 L. | 3 | 1996–1999 |
People v. ex rel. Hartrich v. 2010 Harley-Davidson
green
2 sentences2018The appellate court concluded the forfeiture of the motorcycle constituted a constitutionally excessive penalty, violating the excessive fines clause of the eighth amendment. 2016 IL App (5th) 150035 , ¶ 41, 407 Ill.Dec. 917 , 64 N.E.3d 716 . 2018The appellate court concluded the forfeiture of the motorcycle constituted a constitutionally excessive penalty, violating the excessive fines clause of the eighth amendment. 2016 IL App (5th) 150035 , ¶ 41, 407 Ill.Dec. 917 , 64 N.E.3d 716 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People ex rel. Waller v. 1996 Saturn
green
2 sentences2017Waller v. 1996 Saturn, 298 Ill. 2017Waller v. 1996 Saturn, VIN 1G82H5282TZ113572, 298 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Express Valet, Inc. v. City of Chicago
green
2 sentences2017Express Valet, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 373 Ill. 2017Express Valet, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 373 Ill. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Jaudon
green
2 sentences2015Jaudon, 307 Ill. 2015Jaudon, 307 Ill. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Ed. 2d at 497 , 113 S. Ct. at 2805 , quoting Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 265 , 106 L. 1990Ed. 2d 219 , 109 S. Ct. 2909 , the Supreme Court considered whether to extend the excessive fines clause of the eighth amendment to awards of punitive damages. | 2 | 1990–2007 |
Timbs v. Indiana
green
2 sentences2020The one case that Snookers cites that purportedly shows that the penalties here are unconstitutional, Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019), holds only that the eighth amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause, but it in no way addresses whether the penalties here imposed under the Act violate the eighth amendment. 2020The one case that Snookers cites that purportedly shows that the penalties here are unconstitutional, Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019), holds only that the eighth amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause, but it in no way addresses whether the penalties here imposed under the Act violate the eighth amendment. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Koy
green
1 sentence2014She further -7- 2014 IL App (2d) 130906 cites United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 331-32 (1998), where the Supreme Court found a statutory forfeiture to be a “fine” for eighth amendment purposes, because the forfeiture served no remedial purpose, was designed to punish the offender, and could not be imposed upon innocent property owners. ¶ 27 The cases that Koy cites share a common vein, which serves to distinguish the cases from hers: the fines or forfeitures at issue triggered the Apprendi rule because they (1) served to punish (2) criminal offenses and were (3) based on facts beyond | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Halper
red
2 sentences1996Ed. 2d at 505 , 113 S. Ct. at 2812 , quoting Halper, 490 U.S. at 448 , 104 L. 1996Ed. 2d at 505 , 113 S. Ct. at 2812 , quoting Halper, 490 U.S. at 448 , 104 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
DUNAWAY BY DUNAWAY v. Fellous
green
1 sentence1993(Collins v. Board of Trustees of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund (1993), 155 Ill. 2d 103, 110 .) The United States Supreme Court recently held that criminal forfeitures constitute punishments which are subject to the limitations of the eighth amendment’s excessive fines clause. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.