Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. 1997 CHEVROLET AND CONTENTS SEIZED FROM James YOUNG [Elizabeth Young], Respondent; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. The Real Property and Improvements Known as 416 S. 62nd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19143 [Elizabeth Young], Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2015-07-30
Citations: 120 A.3d 993
Docket Number: 
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. 1997 CHEVROLET AND CONTENTS SEIZED FROM James YOUNG [Elizabeth Young], Respondent. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. The Real Property and Improvements Known as 416 S. 62nd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19143 [Elizabeth Young], Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 120
Pages: 993–993

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. 1997 CHEVROLET AND CONTENTS SEIZED FROM James YOUNG [Elizabeth Young], Respondent. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. The Real Property and Improvements Known as 416 S. 62nd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19143 [Elizabeth Young], Respondent.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
July 30, 2015.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues are:
(1) Did [the] Commonwealth Court contravene United States Supreme Court .precedent by limiting forfeitures to instrumentalities of the underlying offense?
(2) Did the Commonwealth Court contravene this Court's and United States Supreme Court's precedent by adopting a subjective test, including criminal culpability, for an excessive fine that is unworkable and illogical?
(3) Did the Commonwealth Court act beyond its authority and contravene this Court's precedent and the Forfeiture Act by holding that an innocent owner defense is proven even where the owner knew of drug sales from her property by her adult son and did nothing to stop them?