Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Diorio

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 18, 1946No. Appeal, 99PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opiniqn by

Baldrige, P. J.,

The question for determination is whether a 1941 Chrysler Tudor sedan, used at the time of the seizure by the owner, Michael E. DiOrio, an operator of a numbers game, to pick up number plays, is subject to forfeiture as a “device or apparatus” under section 59, or “any device or machine of any kind, character or description whatever, used and employed for the purpose of unlawful gaming” under section 60 of the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, 18 PS §§1444, 1445.

DiOrio pleaded guilty to the charges of conspiracy to establish an illegal lottery, traffic in lottery…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rosen v. Superintendent of Police Le StrangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  2. Fairmount Engine Co. v. Montgomery CountySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. American Telephone & Telegraph Company's AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
  4. Commonwealth v. PetrilloSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  5. Commonwealth v. One 1940 Chevrolet Station WagonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. CrosbySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  2. Commonwealth v. BlytheSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  3. Commonwealth v. BrunoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  4. In re District Attorney of Wyoming County Seeking Forfeiture of One 1986 Oldsmobile SedanCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Commonwealth v. SchilbeBerks County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1961

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API