Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
25 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1991–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Real Property & Improvements Commonly Known as 5444 Spruce Streetgreen2 sentences2023“To determine whether the excessive fines clause has been violated, ‘[a] court must consider whether the statutory provision imposes punishment; and if so, whether the fine is excessive.’” Eckhart, 8 A.3d at 407 (quoting 5444 Spruce Street, 832 A.2d at 399 ). “[T]he primary purpose of a fine or a penalty is twofold[:] to punish violators and to deter future or continued violations.” Eisenberg, 98 A.3d at 1283 (quoting Church, 522 A.2d at 34 ). 2020“To determine whether the excessive fines clause has been violated, ‘[a] court must consider whether the statutory provision imposes punishment; and if so, whether the fine is excessive.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. 5444 Spruce Street, 832 A.2d 396, 399 (Pa. 2003)). | 4 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Eisenberg, M., Apltgreen2 sentences2023“To determine whether the excessive fines clause has been violated, ‘[a] court must consider whether the statutory provision imposes punishment; and if so, whether the fine is excessive.’” Eckhart, 8 A.3d at 407 (quoting 5444 Spruce Street, 832 A.2d at 399 ). “[T]he primary purpose of a fine or a penalty is twofold[:] to punish violators and to deter future or continued violations.” Eisenberg, 98 A.3d at 1283 (quoting Church, 522 A.2d at 34 ). 2019Initially, the dissent noted "that the excessive fines clause set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution is coextensive with the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Id. at 1123 (citing Commonwealth v. Eisenberg , 626 Pa. 512 , 98 A.3d 1268 , 1281 (2014) ). | 2 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevrolet & Contents Seized From Younggreen2 sentences2025Both entail review for gross disproportionality, but the excessive fines analysis focuses more closely on the value of the property at issue; in 1997 Chevrolet, our Supreme Court included factors specific to a value analysis: The factors, among others, to be considered in assessing the value of the property are: (1) the fair market value of the property; (2) the subjective value of the property taking into account whether the property is a family residence or if the property is essential to the owner’s livelihood; (3) the harm forfeiture would bring to the owner or innocent third parties; and 2018As the trial court did not have the benefit of our explication of the proper proportionality assessment, we remand the matter to the Commonwealth Court, for remand to the trial court, for reconsideration of [the a]ppellee’s Excessive Fines Clause challenge in light of our opinion. 1997 Chevrolet, 160 A.3d at 192 (emphasis added; citations omitted). | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Bajakajiangreen2 sentences2006An in rem forfeiture effected pursuant to the Forfeitures Act is punitive, Id, and a punitive forfeiture violates the excessive fines clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense, Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 336-37 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 ; 5444 Spruce Street, 574 Pa. at 432 , 832 A.2d at 401 . 2006An in rem forfeiture effected pursuant to the Forfeitures Act is punitive, Id, and a punitive forfeiture violates the excessive fines clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense, Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 336-37 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 ; 5444 Spruce Street, 574 Pa. at 432 , 832 A.2d at 401 . | 2 | 3 |
Austin v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993), which discusses the Eighth Amendment, the excessive fines clause, and forfeitures in detail. 2002See Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993), which discusses the Eighth Amendment, the excessive fines clause, and forfeitures in detail. | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Wingait Farmsgreen2 sentences2018See Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevrolet, 160 A.3d 153, 184 (Pa. 2017) (“The instrumentality requirement [of the Eighth Amendment] necessitates the establishment of a ‘significant relationship’ between the offense and the property sought to be forfeited.”); id. at 183 n.23 (noting the overlap between the “significant relationship” requirement of the instrumentality test, the courts’ “substantial nexus” test, and the term “facilitate” in the Drug Act); Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms, 690 A.2d 222 , 227 & n.6 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Trayer, 680 A.2d 1166, 1167-68 (Pa. Super. 1996); see also In re $ 2014The Court stated: “A constitutionally excessive forfeiture, therefore, would be one in which the property was not significantly utilized in the commission of the drug-related offense.” Id. at 227. | 1 | 2 |
Hiko Energy, LLC v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'ngreen1 sentence2024See HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 209 A.3d 246 (Pa. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
One Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($137,325.00) in United States Currency v. State Ex Rel. Pelahatchie Police Departmentgreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevrolet, 160 A.3d 153, 184 (Pa. 2017) (“The instrumentality requirement [of the Eighth Amendment] necessitates the establishment of a ‘significant relationship’ between the offense and the property sought to be forfeited.”); id. at 183 n.23 (noting the overlap between the “significant relationship” requirement of the instrumentality test, the courts’ “substantial nexus” test, and the term “facilitate” in the Drug Act); Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms, 690 A.2d 222 , 227 & n.6 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Trayer, 680 A.2d 1166, 1167-68 (Pa. Super. 1996); see also In re $ | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Trayergreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevrolet, 160 A.3d 153, 184 (Pa. 2017) (“The instrumentality requirement [of the Eighth Amendment] necessitates the establishment of a ‘significant relationship’ between the offense and the property sought to be forfeited.”); id. at 183 n.23 (noting the overlap between the “significant relationship” requirement of the instrumentality test, the courts’ “substantial nexus” test, and the term “facilitate” in the Drug Act); Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms, 690 A.2d 222 , 227 & n.6 (Pa. 1997); Commonwealth v. Trayer, 680 A.2d 1166, 1167-68 (Pa. Super. 1996); see also In re $ | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. REAL PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTSgreen2 sentences2017MHL-16 To determine whether the excessive fines clause has been violated, a court considers “whether the statutory provision imposes punishment; and if so, whether the fine is excessive.” Commonwealth v. 5444 Spruce Street, 890 A.2d 35, 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. 5444 Spruce Street, 832 A.2d 396, 399 (Pa. 2003)). 2017To determine whether the excessive fines clause has been violated, a court considers “whether the statutory provision imposes punishment; and if so, whether the fine is excessive.” Commonwealth v. 5444 Spruce Street, 890 A.2d 35, 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. 5444 Spruce Street, 574 Pa. 423 , 832 A.2d 396, 399 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. 1997 Chevroletgreen1 sentence2017The dissenters objected to what they believed to be the overruling of the court’s prior en banc decision in Commonwealth v. 542 Ontario Street, 989 A.2d 411 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), and would have embraced that decision’s approach, which examines the property owner’s conduct and the value of the property in comparison to the maximum statutory penalty for the underlying criminal conduct. 1997 Chevrolet, 106 A.3d at 882 (Simpson, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
In Re New 12th Ward Republican Clubgreen1 sentence2014Whether the forfeiture action should be dismissed as a result of the death of Dr. Chang? _______________________ (Footnote Continued) Id. at 207 (citations and footnote omitted). question of a nexus between the annuity account ordered certain defenses deferred to the pending forfeiture proceeding in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. 542 Ontario Street, Bethlehem
green
2 sentences2017The dissenters objected to what they believed to be the overruling of the court’s prior en banc decision in Commonwealth v. 542 Ontario Street, 989 A.2d 411 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), and would have embraced that decision’s approach, which examines the property owner’s conduct and the value of the property in comparison to the maximum statutory penalty for the underlying criminal conduct. 1997 Chevrolet, 106 A.3d at 882 (Simpson, J., dissenting). 2017The dissenters objected to what they believed to be the overruling of the court’s prior en banc decision in Commonwealth v. 542 Ontario Street, 989 A.2d 411 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), and would have embraced that decision’s approach, which examines the property owner’s conduct and the value of the property in comparison to 13 Then-President Judge Dan Pellegrini penned a concurring opinion offering that the Commonwealth should meet its burden in a forfeiture case by clear and convincing evidence, rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but acknowledged that answering that issue was unn | 3 | 2014–2017 |
Scarantino v. Public School Employees' Retirement Board
green
2 sentences2023Id. at 384-85 . 2022Id. at 384-85 . | 2 | 2022–2023 |
United States v. Levesque
green
2 sentences2017We find such consideration—whether the forfeiture would deprive the property owner of his or her livelihood, i.e., his current or “future ability to earn a living,” Levesque , 546 F.3d at 85—to be entirely appropriate and consistent with the teachings of Bajakajian and 5444 Spruce Street. 2017We find such consideration—whether the forfeiture would deprive the property owner of his or her livelihood, i.e., his current or “future ability to earn a living,” Levesque , 546 F.3d at 85—to be entirely appropriate and consistent with the teachings of Bajakajian and 5444 Spruce Street. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re King Properties
green
2 sentences2017We stated: “if the forfeited property was significantly used in the commission of the offense, the item may be forfeited regardless of its value.” In re King Properties, 635 A.2d at 133 . 2017We stated: “if the forfeited property was significantly used in the commission of the offense, the item may be forfeited regardless of its value.” In re King Properties, 635 A.2d at 133 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Church
green
2 sentences2023“To determine whether the excessive fines clause has been violated, ‘[a] court must consider whether the statutory provision imposes punishment; and if so, whether the fine is excessive.’” Eckhart, 8 A.3d at 407 (quoting 5444 Spruce Street, 832 A.2d at 399 ). “[T]he primary purpose of a fine or a penalty is twofold[:] to punish violators and to deter future or continued violations.” Eisenberg, 98 A.3d at 1283 (quoting Church, 522 A.2d at 34 ). 2023“Since it serves not only as a punishment but also as a deterrent, the amount of the fine can be raised to whatever sum is necessary to discourage future or continued violations, subject of course, to any restriction imposed on the amount of the fine by the enabling statute or the Constitution.” Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Eckhart v. Department of Agriculture
green
1 sentence2023“To determine whether the excessive fines clause has been violated, ‘[a] court must consider whether the statutory provision imposes punishment; and if so, whether the fine is excessive.’” Eckhart, 8 A.3d at 407 (quoting 5444 Spruce Street, 832 A.2d at 399 ). “[T]he primary purpose of a fine or a penalty is twofold[:] to punish violators and to deter future or continued violations.” Eisenberg, 98 A.3d at 1283 (quoting Church, 522 A.2d at 34 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Jackson v. Hendrick
green
1 sentence2020“To determine whether the excessive fines clause has been violated, ‘[a] court must consider whether the statutory provision imposes punishment; and if so, whether the fine is excessive.’” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. 5444 Spruce Street, 832 A.2d 396, 399 (Pa. 2003)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
HIKO Energy, LLC v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
green
1 sentence2019Initially, the dissent noted "that the excessive fines clause set forth in the Pennsylvania Constitution is coextensive with the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." Id. at 1123 (citing Commonwealth v. Eisenberg , 626 Pa. 512 , 98 A.3d 1268 , 1281 (2014) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Wilson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 340 n.15. 29 See also Commonwealth v. Carela-Tolentino, 48 A.3d 1221 , 1226 n.6 (Pa. 2012) (Castille, C.J., dissenting statement). [J-68A-2016 and J-68B-2016] - 55 We find such consideration — whether the forfeiture would deprive the property owner of his or her livelihood, i.e., his current or “future ability to earn a living,” Levesque, 546 F.3d at 85 — to be entirely appropriate and consistent with the teachings of Bajakajian and 5444 Spruce Street. 2017Id. at 340 n.15. 29 See also Commonwealth v. Carela-Tolentino, 48 A.3d 1221 , 1226 n.6 (Pa. 2012) (Castille, C.J., dissenting statement). [J-68A-2016 and J-68B-2016] - 55 We find such consideration — whether the forfeiture would deprive the property owner of his or her livelihood, i.e., his current or “future ability to earn a living,” Levesque, 546 F.3d at 85 — to be entirely appropriate and consistent with the teachings of Bajakajian and 5444 Spruce Street. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Von Hofe v. United States
green
1 sentence2014This is not an analysis that can be reduced to a formula “with surgical precision.” von Hofe, 492 F.3d at 186 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. CARELA-TOLENTINO
neutral
1 sentence2014As relevant here, the court rejected the excessive fines claim by noting that this Court then had pending before it a discretionary appeal in Commonwealth v. Carela-Tolentino, 610 Pa. 10 , 17 A.3d 922 (2011), posing the question of whether the imposition of a mandatory minimum fine of $25,000 for drug trafficking offenses violated the Eighth Amendment or Article I, Section 13. 4 In the trial court’s view, the eventual decision in Carelar-Tolentino “will shed valuable light,” but absent such guidance, it saw no merit in the claim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Padgett
neutral
1 sentence2014As relevant here, the court rejected the excessive fines claim by noting that this Court then had pending before it a discretionary appeal in Commonwealth v. Carela-Tolentino, 610 Pa. 10 , 17 A.3d 922 (2011), posing the question of whether the imposition of a mandatory minimum fine of $25,000 for drug trafficking offenses violated the Eighth Amendment or Article I, Section 13. 4 In the trial court’s view, the eventual decision in Carelar-Tolentino “will shed valuable light,” but absent such guidance, it saw no merit in the claim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Brown v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences2010Brown v. Commonwealth, 940 A.2d 610 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008). 2010Brown v. Commonwealth, 940 A.2d 610 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Alexander v. United States
green
2 sentences1993See Austin v. United States,-U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801 , 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993); Alexander v. United States, —- U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2766 , 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993). 7 . 1993See Austin v. United States,-U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2801 , 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993); Alexander v. United States, —- U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2766 , 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993). 7 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Dietrich v. J.I. Case Co.
green
2 sentences1991Case Co., 390 Pa.Super. 475 , 568 A.2d 1272 (1990), it was argued that Rule 238 imposes delay damages for future losses and injuries not yet payable, and violates the excessive fines clause of the United States Constitution. 1991Case Co., 390 Pa.Super. 475 , 568 A.2d 1272 (1990), it was argued that Rule 238 imposes delay damages for future losses and injuries not yet payable, and violates the excessive fines clause of the United States Constitution. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.