142 Pa. Super. 524 - Commonwealth v. Weiss’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Resnick · Commonwealth v. Exler · 126 Pa. Super. 533 - American Telephone & Telegraph Company's Appeal · 115 Pa. Super. 183 - Com. of Pa. v. Baker · 115 Pa. Super. 241 - Com. v. West Philadelphia Fidelio Mannerchor
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . The Commonwealth contends this article was intended for use as a gambling device or apparatus. "It is clear from the evidence that the defendant simply displayed the punch board and others like it for sale and did not sell chances thereon or in any other manner employ them for gambling upon the premises. "Section 612 . . . under which the indictment was drawn, provides in part as follows: `Whoever keeps or exhibits any gaming table, device or apparatus to win or gain money or other property of value, or engages in gambling for a livelihood, or aids or assists others to do so, or who sells tickets or policies in a lottery, is guilty of nuisance.' "It will be observed that this section of the statute does not expressly deal with the sale of gambling apparatus or devices. In order to sustain appellant's conviction it is necessary to construe the language of this section as though it read `keep or exhibit for sale .' It may be that the legislature had in mind to make it an offense to keep or exhibit any gaming table, device or apparatus with the intent or for the purpose of operating it. This latter interpretation seems plausible when we consider that part of the section which expressly *Page 4 refers to one who `engages in gambling for a livelihood'.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is clear from the evidence that the defendant simply displayed the punch board and others like it for sale and did not sell chances thereon or in any other manner employ them for gambling upon the premises.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.