Adderly v. Palms of Hallandale, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Commonwealth proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there was nexus between seized money and a violation of the Controlled Substances Act by presenting documentary evidence
• holding that Esquilin, who had no drugs on his person, was within arm’s length of the person who did have drugs, which was sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption for property found in “close proximity” to drugs
• holding that Esquilin, who had no drugs on his person, was within arm’s length of the person who did have drugs, which was sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption for property found in “close proximity” to drugs
• observing that “[i]t is not unusual for drug dealing confederates to engage in a division of labor[.]”
• noting that “the confiscated zip-lock packets were laboratory tested, and each was found to contain cocaine” thereby demonstrating a nexus between the cash and “illegal drug dealing....”
• observing that “[i]t is not unusual for drug dealing confederates to engage in a division of labor, whereby one controls the drugs and the other the money.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).