Commonwealth v. Two Electronic Poker Game MacHines
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP THE COURT
HUTCHINSON, Justice.
These cases require us to consider the issue of what constitutes a gambling device per se, as well as the distinct but related issue of the power of a court to order the seizure and forfeiture of a machine which while not a gambling device per se is shown to have been used for gambling purposes. Specifically, we must determine whether electronic devices which simulate some of the elements of the games of draw poker and blackjack and which give only free games as a reward for successful play are nevertheless gambling devices per se when they also possess…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. United States Coin & CurrencySupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Wigton's ReturnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
- Commonwealth v. One 1939 Cadillac SedanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Urban's AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- United States v. ConleyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Commonwealth v. One 1988 Ford Coupe Vin 1FABP41A9JF143651Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
- United States v. ConleyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Score Family Fun Center, Inc. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Estate of Peetros v. County Detectives & District Attorney's OfficeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.