407 Pa. Super. 15 - Commonwealth v. Giffin’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. Carr (1994), 420 Pa. Super. 311 - Commonwealth v. Cottam (1992)
2 federal appellate · 53 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 Commonwealth v. Shaffer · Fried v. Fried · Rader v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission · Commonwealth v. Wallace · 341 Pa. Super. 525 - In re Maglisco
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where currency is found in close proximity to controlled substances which are unlawfully possessed, such currency is rebuttably presumed to be proceeds deriving from selling a controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substance Act. 42 Pa.C.S §6801(a)(6)(ii). In Commonwealth v. Tate , a case decided under the prior forfeiture statute, a panel of this court stated that a rebuttable presumption is a means by which a rule of substantive law is invoked to force the trier of fact to reach a given conclusion, once the facts constituting its hypothesis have been established. Id., 371 Pa. Super. 611, 616-17 , 538 A.2d 903, 906 (1988), quoting Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 447 Pa. 91, 104-06 , 288 A.2d 727, 735 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 867 , 93 S.Ct. 164 , 34 L.Ed.2d 116 (1972). The Tate court further explained that ‘[a] rebuttable presumption forces the defendant to come forth or suffer inevitable defeat on the issue in controversy.’ Id. The specific test used to evaluate the evidence presented at a forfeiture hearing is whether it was ‘more likely than not’ that the funds were used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled Substance Act.” Commonwealth v. One 1988 Ford Coupe, 393 Pa. Super. at 333, 574 A.2d at 638 (1990).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(A) Money, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and all proceeds traceable to such an exchange. “(B) Money, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.” Act of 1988, June 30, P.L. 464 No. 79 §4, 42 Pa.C.S. §6801.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“more likely than not derived from or used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled Substances Act”
1 later decision 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.