Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Schubert Theatre Players Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 30, 1938No. 31,387Published

1DissentLoring, Justice

Stated concisely, the majority opinion puts the test as to whether the acts charged constitute a lottery as follows: “The test is whether that group who did pay for admission were paying in part for the chance of a prize.” Commonwealth v. Wall (Mass.) 3 N. E. (2d) 28, 30. With that test I agree. But I find nothing in the information that charges that a part of the charge for admission was for a chance on the prize, nor do I find any facts alleged from Avhich it might be properly inferred that the right to participate by those outside the theater was a cloak or device to evade the law or that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. EamesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
  2. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1938
  3. State v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API