172 Pa. Super. 365 - Commonwealth v. Logan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Appellant does not question the procedure; he contests the legality of the order on the single ground that the punch boards seized in the warehouse of the Logan Company were never actually used for unlawful gaming. The fact that they were not so used is not controlling under the circumstances; the important consideration is that many of the punch boards were per se gambling devices and on the basis of the evidence all were intended to be used for gambling. Since under the evidence the punch boards were gambling devices they are outlaw property and may be confiscated and destroyed although never actually used for the illegal purposes for which they were intended. Commonwealth v. Kaiser, 80 Pa.Super. 26 . Cf. Urban’s Appeal, 148 Pa.Super. 101, 113 , 24 A.2d 756 . Commonwealth v. Handmore, 60 Dauph. Co. 416, is identical in principle with the phase of the instant case involved in this appeal. There Judge Woodside reviewed the law applicable to the forfeiture and destruction of similar punch boards as gambling devices. We are in entire accord with the holding of that case to the effect that the court may order the destruction of punch boards when they are shown to be gambling devices, regardless of whether the boards were set up or otherwise actually employed for unlawful gaming. In re Wigton’s Return, 151 Pa.Super. 337 , 30 A.2d 352 , on which appellant strongly relies is not controlling.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Container Manufacturing Co.