Legal Opinion

Hartlieb v. Carr

District Court, E.D. Kentucky

Decided January 13, 1950No. 432PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SWINFORD, District Judge.

It is continually argued in defendants’ brief that this statute, KRS 372.-040, is solely for the purpose of deterring gambling. There is nothing in the statute that says that, nor is it proper for this Court to assume to legislate or charge the legislative branch of the government with an interpretation which is not clearly evidenced in the legislation. The statute is meant to protect the homes of those who cannot afford to be enticed into gambling establishments to dissipate their earnings or property to the distress of their families. The treble damage feature may…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State of Iowa v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa · 1889
  2. Collins v. KiddDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 1941
  3. Salonen v. FarleyDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1949

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Tasner v. U. S. Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1974
  2. Samuel Tucker and Samuel Schrader v. Margaret P. CutlerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1951
  3. Tucker v. CutlerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API