390 Pa. Super. 140 - Commonwealth v. Crosby’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 435 Pa. Super. 499 - Commonwealth v. Koren (1994), 393 Pa. Super. 320 - Commonwealth v. One 1988 Ford Coupe Vin 1FABP41A9JF143651 (1990)
46 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 240 Pa. Super. 458 - Commonwealth v. Landy · Commonwealth v. Walton · 341 Pa. Super. 525 - In re Maglisco · Commonwealth v. Quinlan · 246 Pa. Super. 42 - Commonwealth v. Fassnacht
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Until the early 1980s, forfeiture cases in Pennsylvania involved statutes which authorized the forfeiture.... Despite [the] indicia that the law in Pennsylvania required statutory authority before derivative contraband could be forfeited, since 1982 there has been a series of opinions by the Superior Court which have held that there was common law authority for ordering forfeiture of derivative contraband. Significantly, however, the authorities cited in these opinions to support this proposition were cases in which there had been statutory authority for the forfeiture. For example, in [Coghe], wherein the court upheld an order directing the forfeiture of the defendant’s $1,000 down payment on a contract to have his wife killed, the only authority cited by the Court for its proposition that “property which is contraband may be forfeited to the Commonwealth,” was the criminal statute expressly providing for forfeiture of certain items involved in drug offenses, 35 P.S. § 780-128[ 6 ] .... Thereafter, in two decisions filed the same day, the Superior Court again found that forfeiture was authorized in the absence of any statutory authority.... Yet in Petition of Maglisco , the only Pennsylvania authorities cited to support the finding of common law forfeiture of derivative contraband were [Landy], and Coghe , both of which themselves rely on authority requiring statutory authorization for derivative contraband to be forfeitable. In Estate of Peetros , the only authority cited t”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“it would be better to leave to the legislature exclusively the task of determining what derivative contraband is forfeitable, under what circumstances such property may be forfeited, and the procedures to be followed to accomplish forfeiture.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(c) Specific conditions. — The court may as a condition of its order require the defendant: ... (6) To refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places or consorting with disreputable persons.”
2 later decisions 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.