Legal Opinion

TAC Amusement Co. v. Mitchell

District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Decided June 24, 1971No. Civ. A. Nos. 71-75, 71-133, 71-337, 71-351, 71-618, 71-685 and 70-3323PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases are claimants of certain “pinball” machines seized by F.B.I. agents for alleged failure of their owners to register with the Attorney General as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1173, part of the Gambling Devices Act of 1962, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1171-78. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of the Gambling Devices Act on the ground that it is unconstitutional' on its face or alternatively, as applied to them. This three-judge court was convened to consider plaintiffs' constitutional attack on the Act.

All of the consolidated cases involve essentially the same…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Phillips v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Rice v. Walls, U.S. Dist. Atty. Puckett v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1954
  3. H. E. Bedenbaugh v. National Surety CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
  4. Hewitt v. National Surety Corp.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1955

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Muncaster v. BaptistDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1973
  2. Faldraga v. CarnesDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1987
  3. Fort v. MitchellDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API