Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 A3D 952 - Commonwealth v. Jackson

Commonwealth v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

2012

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Commonwealth v. $6,425.00 Seized from Esquilin · Commonwealth v. Mosley · 418 Pa. Super. 82 - Commonwealth v. Anthony · 403 Pa. Super. 526 - In Re Commonwealth, $803 Cash, U.S. Currency · Commonwealth v. 542 Ontario Street, Bethlehem

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

  1. “are the in rem consequence for wrongdoing prescribed by statute. Property is forfeited not as a result of [a] criminal conviction, but through a separate proceeding, civil in form but quasi-criminal in nature, in which the agency seeking the property must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, a nexus between the property sought and the possessor's illegal activity ... Regardless of whether a conviction can be gained from the evidence, the Commonwealth may seek to forfeit property as long as it establishes that the property constitutes contraband.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “money ... 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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “only where the government has independent, unsuppressed evidence that the res is contraband is it entitled to proceed to the merits in a forfeiture case”
    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.