Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Estate of Weisenberg

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1946No. 30672Published

1DissentWeygandt, C. J.

The Court of Appeals unanimously held that “the said articles are gambling devices and were intended to be so used when seized by. or on behalf of the said chief of police and as Such were subject to be summarily seized and confiscated by the chief of police or the Police Department of the city of Cleveland.”

This statement is substantiated by the record. Furthermore, in the opinion of the majority of this court it is properly observed that the machines here involved are conceded to be gambling devices and that they are gambling devices per se. This is in conformity with the pronouncement in-…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Kraus v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1939
  2. State v. KraussOhio Supreme Court · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API