Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. One (1) 1984 Z-28 Camaro Coupe
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided May 20, 1992No. 20 E.D. Appeal Docket 1991PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Justice.
The issue raised by this case is whether the owner of property subject to forfeiture under the Controlled Substances Forfeitures Act1 is entitled to a jury trial pursuant *525to Article 1, § 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.2 For the reasons that follow, we hold that jury trials are required when demanded by claimants in forfeiture actions brought pursuant to the Controlled Substances Forfeitures Act.
The property at issue in this case is a 1984 Z-28 Camaro automobile, which was allegedly purchased using proceeds from the illegal sale of drugs and which was…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People v. One 1941 Chevrolet CoupeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. DanaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- United States v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, Serial No. 11602012072193Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
- C. J. Hendry Co. v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Schooner Hoppet & Cargo v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Mishoe v. Erie InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Wertz v. Chapman TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Advanced Telephone Systems, Inc. v. Com-Net Professional Mobile Radio, LLCSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- State v. One 1990 Honda AccordSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998
- Helms v. Tennessee Department of SafetyTennessee Supreme Court · 1999
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.