Legal Opinion

Pepple v. Headrick

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided August 18, 1942No. 7013PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAilshie, J.

This action is brought by appellants for a permanent injunction, to restrain respondents from seizing, confiscating, destroying, or interfering with certain property of appellants, commonly known as “pinball machines.” Appellants (plaintiffs) allege ownership of certain ma chines, the payment of federal, state and county taxes, and license fees to Boise City, the distribution of the machines to divers persons within the city and county, “to be operated .... for the enjoyment of the public”; that they are lawful property and not operated contrary to any state law or city ordinance; that unless…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Ellison v. . LavinNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
  2. People v. CarrollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. J. B. Mullen & Co. v. MoseleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Affiliated Enterprises, Inc. v. WallerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1939
  5. Kraus v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1939

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. HartIdaho Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. Village of Garden CityIdaho Supreme Court · 1953
  3. State Ex Rel. Replogle v. Joyland ClubMontana Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Brown v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1956
  5. State v. Pinball MacHinesAlaska Supreme Court · 1965

11 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