17 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
$27,877.00 Current Money of the United Statesgreen2 sentences2011DELIVERED: August 4, 2011 22 See $27,877.00 Current Money of U.S. v. State, 331 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. filed) (assuming without deciding that civil forfeiture of drug proceeds is subject to the Excessive Fines clause and holding that forfeiture of an amount 2.3 times the maximum fine was not excessive); see also U.S. v. Wallace, 389 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding forfeiture of $30,000 airplane when the statutory maximum fine for failure to register the airplane was $15,000). 10 2011Tex. Sept. 9, 2009). [19] Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 336–37, 118 S. Ct. at 2037–38; One Car , 122 S.W.3d at 427 . [20] Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (West 2011). [21] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21 (West 2011). [22] See $27,877.00 Current Money of U.S. v. State , 331 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. filed) (assuming without deciding that civil forfeiture of drug proceeds is subject to the Excessive Fines clause and holding that forfeiture of an amount 2.3 times the maximum fine was not excessive); see also U.S. v. Wallace , 389 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding forfeiture | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2011DELIVERED: August 4, 2011 22 See $27,877.00 Current Money of U.S. v. State, 331 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. filed) (assuming without deciding that civil forfeiture of drug proceeds is subject to the Excessive Fines clause and holding that forfeiture of an amount 2.3 times the maximum fine was not excessive); see also U.S. v. Wallace, 389 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding forfeiture of $30,000 airplane when the statutory maximum fine for failure to register the airplane was $15,000). 10 2011Tex. Sept. 9, 2009). [19] Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 336–37, 118 S. Ct. at 2037–38; One Car , 122 S.W.3d at 427 . [20] Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (West 2011). [21] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21 (West 2011). [22] See $27,877.00 Current Money of U.S. v. State , 331 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. filed) (assuming without deciding that civil forfeiture of drug proceeds is subject to the Excessive Fines clause and holding that forfeiture of an amount 2.3 times the maximum fine was not excessive); see also U.S. v. Wallace , 389 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding forfeiture | 2 | 2 |
Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc.green2 sentences1997Excessive fine The United States Supreme Court held in Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 , 109 S.Ct. 2909 , 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989), that the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to awards of punitive damages in civil cases between private parties. 1997Excessive fine The United States Supreme Court held in Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 , 109 S.Ct. 2909 , 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989), that the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to awards of punitive damages in civil cases between private parties. | 1 | 3 |
Parker v. Waltongreen1 sentence2015Nath cited United States Supreme Court precedent to See id. at 730 (reversing a sanctions award of $150, 000 bolster his contention that the trial court should consider in attorney's fees for groundlessness and discovery "whether the penalties in question were excessive."[11] non-compliance); Dike v. Peltier Chevrolet, Inc., 343 We are generally loath to turn away a meritorious claim S.W.3d 179, 183 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no due to waiver; where the party has clearly and timely pet.) (reversing a groundless pleadings sanction of $15, registered its objection, we find a waiver argumen | 1 | 1 |
Verburgt v. Dornergreen2 sentences2014See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex.1997). 2014See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 , 616–17 (Tex. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Celotex Corp. v. Tategreen2 sentences1994Celotex Coip. v. Tate, 797 S.W.2d 197, 208 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no writ). 1994Celotex Corp. v. Tate, 797 S.W.2d 197, 208 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 1990, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. United States
green
2 sentences1998The Austin Court held that a federal forfeiture statute did not serve a solely remedial purpose and that forfeiture under the civil statute constituted punishment to which the Eight Amendment’s excessive fines clause applied. 509 U.S. at 617-621 , 113 S.Ct. at 2809-11 . 4 . 1998The Austin Court held that a federal forfeiture statute did not serve a solely remedial purpose and that forfeiture under the civil statute constituted punishment to which the Eight Amendment’s excessive fines clause applied. 509 U.S. at 617-621 , 113 S.Ct. at 2809-11 . 4 . | 7 | 1994–1998 |
United States v. Bajakajian
green
2 sentences2011Tex. Sept. 9, 2009). [19] Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 336–37, 118 S. Ct. at 2037–38; One Car , 122 S.W.3d at 427 . [20] Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (West 2011). [21] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21 (West 2011). [22] See $27,877.00 Current Money of U.S. v. State , 331 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. filed) (assuming without deciding that civil forfeiture of drug proceeds is subject to the Excessive Fines clause and holding that forfeiture of an amount 2.3 times the maximum fine was not excessive); see also U.S. v. Wallace , 389 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding forfeiture 2011Tex. Sept. 9, 2009). [19] Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 336–37, 118 S. Ct. at 2037–38; One Car , 122 S.W.3d at 427 . [20] Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (West 2011). [21] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21 (West 2011). [22] See $27,877.00 Current Money of U.S. v. State , 331 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. filed) (assuming without deciding that civil forfeiture of drug proceeds is subject to the Excessive Fines clause and holding that forfeiture of an amount 2.3 times the maximum fine was not excessive); see also U.S. v. Wallace , 389 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding forfeiture | 1 | 2011–2011 |
One Car, 1996 Dodge X-Cab Truck White in Color 5YC-T17 VIN 3B7HC13Z5TG163723 v. State
green
1 sentence2011Tex. Sept. 9, 2009). [19] Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 336–37, 118 S. Ct. at 2037–38; One Car , 122 S.W.3d at 427 . [20] Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35 (West 2011). [21] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21 (West 2011). [22] See $27,877.00 Current Money of U.S. v. State , 331 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, pet. filed) (assuming without deciding that civil forfeiture of drug proceeds is subject to the Excessive Fines clause and holding that forfeiture of an amount 2.3 times the maximum fine was not excessive); see also U.S. v. Wallace , 389 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir. 2004) (upholding forfeiture | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ex parte Gary
green
1 sentence1998In Gary , the Amarillo Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument for applying this exception. 895 S.W.2d at 468 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Bennis v. Michigan
green
2 sentences1997Despite the willingness of the Court in Austin to apply the excessive fines clause to forfeiture proceedings, Bennis holds that a state statute that does not protect an innocent owner against a forfeiture of property does not offend the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment or the takings clause of the fifth amendment. 516 U.S. at 442 ,116 S.Ct. at 996. 1997Despite the willingness of the Court in Austin to apply the excessive fines clause to forfeiture proceedings, Bennis holds that a state statute that does not protect an innocent owner against a forfeiture of property does not offend the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment or the takings clause of the fifth amendment. 516 U.S. at 442 , 116 S.Ct. at 996. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ex Parte Ariza
green
2 sentences1996I do not believe that this is appropriate, and agree with the Ariza court that this is “a distinction without a difference.” Ariza, 913 S.W.2d at 222 n. 4. 3 I would affirm the judgment below and hold that the prior forfeiture of assets constituted punishment and barred Lara’s subsequent prosecution. 1996I do not believe that this is appropriate, and agree with the Ariza court that this is "a distinction without a difference." Ariza, 913 S.W.2d at 222 n. 4. [3] *206 I would affirm the judgment below and hold that the prior forfeiture of assets constituted punishment and barred Lara's subsequent prosecution. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Ward
green
2 sentences1996Id. 1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch
green
2 sentences1995In Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 1941 , 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994), the issue was whether a tax on the possession of illegal drugs assessed after the State had imposed a criminal penalty for the same conduct may violate the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment. 1995In Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 1941 , 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994), the issue was whether a tax on the possession of illegal drugs assessed after the State had imposed a criminal penalty for the same conduct may violate the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool
green
1 sentence1995Pennington, 606 S.W.2d at 690 ; Fibreboard, 813 S.W.2d at 686-87 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Pennington v. Singleton
green
1 sentence1995Pennington, 606 S.W.2d at 690 ; Fibreboard, 813 S.W.2d at 686-87 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.