Commonwealth v. Landy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that certain forfeiture proceedings not “criminal proceedings” that require the full panoply of rights due criminal defendants
• holding that “[o]n issues of evidence, [forfeiture] proceedings should be treated as civil proceedings with the Commonwealth having the burden of proving the material allegations by a preponderance of the evidence only.”
• “... we note that Pennsylvania case law has consistently required the Commonwealth to prove their forfeiture case by a preponderance of the evidence.”
• “It is not only the policy of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, but also the policy of our criminal law to deprive a criminal of the fruits of his illegal act.”
• proceeds directly derived from and traceable to the sale of illegal pills

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).