4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 8 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re King Properties.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re King Properties Anchor | green | “if the forfeited property was significantly used in the commission of the offense, the item may be forfeited regardless of its value.” | 3 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms | green | “constitutionally 'excessive' forfeiture, therefore, would be one in which the property was not significantly utilized in the commission of the drug-related offense.” | 2 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms | green | “significantly utilized in the commission” | 2 |
| 4 | Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms | green | “a constitutionally excessive forfeiture, therefore, would be one in which the property was not significantly utilized in the commission of the drug-related offense.” | 1 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.