Legal Opinion · Dissent

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

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 21, 2012Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

Judge McGINLEY.

I dissent to the Plurality’s conclusion that the Rules of Civil Procedure, including Summary Judgment, are not available in a civil forfeiture proceeding under the Forfeiture Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 6801-6802. I object to the Plurality’s decision to overrule two decades of case law1 without fully considering the implications of its ruling.2

*1056First, I do not agree that the language of the statute mandates a hearing even when there is no disputed issue of material fact. Although the Forfeiture Act mandates that a party receive an opportunity to be heard the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Washington v. BaxterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  2. Washington v. BaxterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. In Re Appeal of Borough of ChurchillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  4. United States v. $133,420.00 in United States CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  5. Commonwealth v. LandySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

10 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