Property-based testing (PBT) is a method of verifying software correctness in which a property, a statement about the behavior of the program which should always hold true, is verified with a large number of arbitrary inputs. While it is a powerful method, properties can be complex and fail on obscure inputs, making them difficult to reason about. We qualitatively analyze a large number of property-based tests (PBTs) written with Quickcheck for Rust from public repositories, in order to gather insights about how PBT is utilized in practice. We find that the majority of analyzed PBTs verify by comparing against a known correct implementation, composing inverse operations to form an identity, or asserting a desired contract about a system's state. These findings offer valuable direction to the development of PBT, aiming to tailor PBT frameworks to developer needs and make them more natural to work with.