Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Commonwealth v. All that Certain Lot or Parcel of Land Located at 605 University Drive

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 21, 2012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge COHN JUBELIRER.

I agree with this Court’s Order remanding this case for a hearing because I be*1059lieve that summary judgment is not available in a proceeding under the Controlled Substances Forfeiture Act (Forfeiture Act), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6801-6802. However, I believe the Plurality goes too far when it also broadly declares that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) do not apply to forfeiture actions and overrules any previous cases in which those Rules were applied. Although the Plurality is correct that a hearing in open court must be held for…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Marks v. TasmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Commonwealth v. 542 Ontario Street, BethlehemCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  4. Commonwealth v. $8006.00 U.S. Currency SeizedCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Commonwealth v. One 1991 Cadillac SevilleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API