Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 sentences1995See also Austin v. United States, 509 U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801 , 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (a civil forfeiture may constitute a punishment within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N5538V., 37 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.1994) (civil forfeiture following conviction in underlying criminal ease is barred by double jeopardy); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (same). 1995See also Austin v. United States, 509 U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801 , 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (a civil forfeiture may constitute a punishment within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N5538V., 37 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.1994) (civil forfeiture following conviction in underlying criminal ease is barred by double jeopardy); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (same). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2012Idaho Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Free, 126 Idaho 422 , 423-24, 885 P.2d 381 , 382-83 (1994) (subjecting Idaho statute regarding forfeiture to the federal Excessive Fines Clause analysis); State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 394 , 825 P.2d 482, 491 (1992) (Idaho’s test that a criminal sentence is cruel and unusual when it is “out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed, and such as to shock the conscience of reasonable people” is essentially equivalent to the federal “grossly disproportionate” test). 2012Idaho Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Free, 126 Idaho 422 , 423-24, 885 P.2d 381 , 382-83 (1994) (subjecting Idaho statute regarding forfeiture to the federal Excessive Fines Clause analysis); State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 394 , 825 P.2d 482, 491 (1992) (Idaho’s test that a criminal sentence is cruel and unusual when it is “out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed, and such as to shock the conscience of reasonable people” is essentially equivalent to the federal “grossly disproportionate” test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jerry Wayne Tilley, and Susan Wells Tilley, Tommy Ross Anderson and Sarah Jane Andersongreen1 sentence1995But see United States v. Tilley, 18 F.3d 295 (5th Cir.1994) (prior civil forfeiture proceeding would not bar subsequent criminal prosecution under double jeopardy clause). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
IDAHO DEPT. OF LAW ENF. BY CADE v. Free
green
2 sentences2012Idaho Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Free, 126 Idaho 422 , 423-24, 885 P.2d 381 , 382-83 (1994) (subjecting Idaho statute regarding forfeiture to the federal Excessive Fines Clause analysis); State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 394 , 825 P.2d 482, 491 (1992) (Idaho’s test that a criminal sentence is cruel and unusual when it is “out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed, and such as to shock the conscience of reasonable people” is essentially equivalent to the federal “grossly disproportionate” test). 2012Idaho Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Free, 126 Idaho 422 , 423-24, 885 P.2d 381 , 382-83 (1994) (subjecting Idaho statute regarding forfeiture to the federal Excessive Fines Clause analysis); State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 394 , 825 P.2d 482, 491 (1992) (Idaho’s test that a criminal sentence is cruel and unusual when it is “out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed, and such as to shock the conscience of reasonable people” is essentially equivalent to the federal “grossly disproportionate” test). | 2 | 1995–2012 |
United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, Charles Arlt James Wren Payback Mines, Claimants-Appellants
green
2 sentences1995See also Austin v. United States, 509 U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801 , 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (a civil forfeiture may constitute a punishment within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N5538V., 37 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.1994) (civil forfeiture following conviction in underlying criminal ease is barred by double jeopardy); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (same). 1995See also Austin v. United States, 509 U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801 , 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (a civil forfeiture may constitute a punishment within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N5538V., 37 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.1994) (civil forfeiture following conviction in underlying criminal ease is barred by double jeopardy); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (same). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N 5538v, Including Its Tools and Appurtenances, Perry A. McCullough Claimant-Appellant
green
2 sentences1995See also Austin v. United States, 509 U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801 , 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (a civil forfeiture may constitute a punishment within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N5538V., 37 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.1994) (civil forfeiture following conviction in underlying criminal ease is barred by double jeopardy); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (same). 1995See also Austin v. United States, 509 U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801 , 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993) (a civil forfeiture may constitute a punishment within the meaning of the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment); United States v. One 1978 Piper Cherokee Aircraft, Tail No. N5538V., 37 F.3d 489 (9th Cir.1994) (civil forfeiture following conviction in underlying criminal ease is barred by double jeopardy); United States v. $405,089.23 U.S. Currency, 33 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.1994) (same). | 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.