Legal Opinion
United States v. 294 Various Gambling Devices
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 20, 1989No. Civ. A. 85-297 EriePublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GERALD J. WEBER, District Judge.
The U.S. instituted this civil forfeiture action against a variety of video draw poker machines, alleging that they are gambling devices prohibited by 15 U.S.C. § 1171 et seq. The machines were seized by agents of the FBI from various bars, restaurants and clubs throughout Erie County, Pennsylvania, and from the warehouses of several local distributors.
Several claimants have come forward, asserting ownership of the various seized machines. These claimants contend that their machines are not gambling devices within the meaning of the federal statute, but…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Merit Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- United States v. Various Slot MacHines on Guam, and Amanda Guzman Shelton, Claimant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Commonwealth v. Two Electronic Poker Game MacHinesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Lion Manufacturing Corporation (New Lion) v. Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
- United States v. Robert J. Ansani, Harvey Milner, John Edward Moore, Joseph J. Aiuppa and Ray JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1957
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- United States v. DyerDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1990
- State v. Two IGT Video Poker GamesNebraska Supreme Court · 1991
- United States v. ConleyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Collins Coin Music Co. of North Carolina, Inc. v. North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control CommissionCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Leonardis v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.