green
Positive treatment
Under Fire
15.7 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934
1980
2026
Under fire: who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this
case.
This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Concurrence
POM of PA v. Dep't of Rev.; Apl. of: Dep't of Rev.
(2026)
“This Court found that the existence of this mechanism “was sufficient to satisfy a court that the machines were, within the meaning of the act of 1925, [ ] manufactured by appellant with the intent that they should be used for gambling.” In re Mills Novelty Co., 175 A. 548, 553 (Pa. 1934); cf. Commonwealth v. Bair, 20 Pa. D. & C. 23, 27-28 (Dauphin Cty. 1933) (finding that an otherwise…”
Concurrence
In re: Three PA Skill Amusement; Apl. of: Comm
(2026)
“This Court found that the existence of this mechanism “was sufficient to satisfy a court that the machines were, within the meaning of the act of 1925, [ ] manufactured by appellant with the intent that they should be used for gambling.” In re Mills Novelty Co., 175 A. 548, 553 (Pa. 1934); cf. Commonwealth v. Bair, 20 Pa. D. & C. 23, 27-28 (Dauphin Cty. 1933) (finding that an otherwise…”
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
POM of PA v. Dep't of Rev.; Apl. of: Dep't of Rev.
(2×)
However, Section 5513 has statutory precursors that date back to 1860, which similarly prohibited devices used for “unlawful gaming.” See Appeal of Mills Novelty Co., 175 A. 548, 548-49 (Pa. 1934) (addressing Act of March 31, 1860, P.L. 398, § 60, 18 P.S. § 1445 (repealed)); Nu-Ken Novelty, Inc. v. Heller, 288 A.2d 919, 919-20 (Pa. Super. 1972) (same). 7 18 Pa.C.S. § 5513(a) (emphasis added). 8 Id. § 5513(b). [J-96-2025, J-97-2025] - 5 statute does not provide definitions for those terms.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: Three PA Skill Amusement; Apl. of: Comm
(2×)
However, Section 5513 has statutory precursors that date back to 1860, which similarly prohibited devices used for “unlawful gaming.” See Appeal of Mills Novelty Co., 175 A. 548, 548-49 (Pa. 1934) (addressing Act of March 31, 1860, P.L. 398, § 60, 18 P.S. § 1445 (repealed)); Nu-Ken Novelty, Inc. v. Heller, 288 A.2d 919, 919-20 (Pa. Super. 1972) (same). 7 18 Pa.C.S. § 5513(a) (emphasis added). 8 Id. § 5513(b). [J-96-2025, J-97-2025] - 5 statute does not provide definitions for those terms.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trombetta Return
See In re Destruction of Twenty-five Slot Machines, 3 Fayette 169, 171 (1940); Urban’s Appeal, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 101, 112-13 (1942); Mills Novelty Company’s Appeal, 316 Pa. 449, 461 (1934).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Spisak
(2×)
See Mills Novelty Co. Appeal, 316 Pa. 449 , 175 Atl. 548 (1934); Pannulla v. Rosenberg, supra; Commonwealth v. One 1927 Graham Truck, 165 Pa. Superior Ct. 1 , 67 A. 2d 655 (1949); Commonwealth v. Petrillo, supra. Statutory forfeiture may be expressed or implied.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
O. D. Jennings & Co. v. Buterbaugh
(2×)
See also Mills Novelty Company’s Appeal, 316 Pa. 449 , at page 460, 175 A. 548 . . 28 U.S.C.A. § 2283 , “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.” While rephrased, the content, as affecting this situation, has not been changed. .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wigton's Return
(2×)
See also Mills Novelty Co.’s Appeal, 316 Pa. 449 , 175 A. 548 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mills Novelty Company's Appeal.
Sep 26, 1934.
Thomas Caldwell , of Caldwell, Fox Stoner , with him J. Kennard Weaver , for appellant.
Thomas B. K. Ringe , with him James Hall Prothero, Ernest Lowengrund , Assistant City Solicitors, David J. Smyth , City Solicitor of Philadelphia, John H. Maurer , Assistant District Attorney, and Charles F. Kelley , District Attorney of Philadelphia, for appellee.
Drew, Frazer, Kephart, Linn, Maxey, Schaefer, Simpson.
Per Curiam,
The opinion in this case of Judge Cunningham of the Superior Court is so full and comprehensive, concerning every feature of the controversy requiring discussion, that nothing additional to the statements therein contained need be said.
Upon that opinion the judgment and order of the Superior Court is affirmed.