Legal Opinion

Johnson v. McDonald

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1929PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

We are of the opinion that the case of Quatsoe v. Eggleston, 42 Or. 315 (71 P. 66), is decisive of this case. From page 320 of the official report we quote:

“There cannot, therefore, be a lottery without this element of uncertainty or chance. If the power of reason or will is exercised upon the selection, then there is no lottery.”

It will be seen from the directions that the prize is drawn not by chance but as a reward for the skill of the person claiming the prize. If there is any element of chance at all about the device it is in the drawing of the problem. Any problem drawn requires the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Quatsoe v. EgglestonOregon Supreme Court · 1903
  2. D'Orio v. Startup Candy Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1928
  3. National Thrift Assn. v. Crews.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925
  4. D'Orio v. JacobsWashington Supreme Court · 1929
  5. National Sales Co. v. MancietOregon Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. Globe-DemocratSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
  2. State v. CoatsOregon Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Boatwright v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
  4. State v. SchwemlerOregon Supreme Court · 1936
  5. In re: Three PA Skill Amusement; Apl. of: CommSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API