Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 446 Pa. Super. 541 - Commonwealth v. Younge

446 Pa. Super. 541 - Commonwealth v. Younge’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2018

20 state decisions

80199520002010decided

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 One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania · Brown v. Texas · McKnight v. Commonwealth · 341 Pa. Super. 525 - In re Maglisco · 407 Pa. Super. 15 - Commonwealth v. Giffin

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[E]ither appellant is a bailee, or he is, as inferred by the Commonwealth and the trial court, an " un lawful" possessor, having come to possess the cash by some undetermined illegal means. However, if appellant were a bailee, he would have to answer to his bailor, not the Commonwealth, for care of the currency. If appellant was in fact an unlawful possessor, then the cash constitutes derivative contraband, and would be subject to forfeiture as such. Rule 324(b). [ 18 ] It would appear that the Commonwealth, by avoiding a forfeiture proceeding in which it concedes it could not prevail, hopes to accomplish indirectly what it could not accomplish directly: it seeks to avoid returning the cash without producing any evidence that the money does not belong to appellant, and without producing any evidence that the cash is derivative contraband and subject to forfeiture.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Motion for Return of Property (A) A person aggrieved by a search and seizure, whether or not executed pursuant to a warrant, may move for the return of the property on the ground that he or she is entitled to lawful possession thereof. Such motion shall be filed in the court of common pleas for the judicial district in which the property was seized. (B) The judge hearing such motion shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision thereon. If the motion is granted, the property shall be restored unless the court determines that such property is contraband, in which case the court may order the property to be forfeited.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n the few cases in which lawful possession or ownership of seized cash was at issue . . . the petitioner's right to lawful possession or ownership was either presumed, or at best, cursorily discussed”
    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.