143 Pa. Super. 317 - Commonwealth v. Ginsberg’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 1986
15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Williams v. United States · United States v. Nixon · Byers & Davis v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Carson · Woolwine Metal Products Co. v. Boyle
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““at 60th. & Market and Spruce Street,” and continues “that Harry Oliver of #’241 No. Darien Street, did attempt to pickpocket an unknown person at 60th and Market Streets getting on a North Bound Trolley car on 60th 'Street, then got on a South Bound Trolley car on 60th 'Street got off at Spruce Street, (Trolley Car was crowded.) “That said offense being committed on the 30th day of October 1942 at 60th & Market and Spruce Street in the City of Philadelphia, contrary to the form of the Act of General Assembly of June 24, 1939, P. L. #872, Section #821, in that case made and provided which said Act of Assembly, among other things provides that where a Professional Thief, Burglar, or pickpocket shall be proved to the Satisfaction of the Magistrate by sufficient evidence that he was there frequenting or attending any place for unlawful purpose he or they shall upon conviction in a Summary Proceeding be sentenced, etc. “And therefore October 31, 1942, it is considered and adjudged the said defendant Harry Oliver, is guilty of being a Professional Thief, and in- that on October 30, 1942, he attended a place for unlawful purpose (Trolley Oar.) and it is proven to the satisfaction of the Magistrate by sufficient evidence that he was there for an unlawful purpose of trying to pickpocket and has been previously «arrested and he shall -for this offense be committed, etc.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Whoever, being charged before a magistrate with being a professional thief, burglar, or pick-pocket, after having been arrested, if it shall be proven to the satisfaction of the said magistrate, by sufficient testimony, that he was frequenting or attending any place for an unlawful purpose, he shall, upon conviction in a summary proceeding, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ninety (90) days, at labor, or, in the discretion of the magistrate, be required to enter security for his good behavior for a period not exceeding one (1) year.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is not necessary that an information should charge the crime with the same detail and technical accuracy required in an indictment; if the essential elements of the offense be set forth in terms of common parlance, and if the defendant is given fair notice of the nature of the unlawful act which he is alleged to have committed, the information is sufficient: Com. v. Carson, 166 Pa. 179 , 30 A. 985 ; Com. v. Robertson, 47 Pa. Superior Ct. 472 ; Com. v. Grego, 11 Pa. Superior Ct. 295 , 176 A. 550 .””
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.